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

searching for


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

House | July 27, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The prayer will be offered by Rep. John Szoka. Members and visitors in the gallery please stand and remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As we've all been taught, prayer doesn't change God. It changes the ones who pray. Please join me in prayer. O, God, creator and preserver of all, we pray for people of every nation and every kind of need. Make your ways known on earth, your saving power among all nations. We pray to you for our government at the national state and local levels. Give wisdom to those you have placed in authority. Guide these leaders in the administration of justice and the application of mercy. We commend to your fatherly goodness to all who are anxious and distressed in mind, body or spirit. Comfort and relieve them in their need. Give them patience in their sufferings, and bring good out of their troubles. Have compassion on our weakness, and give us those things which for our unworthiness we dare not, for our blindness we cannot ask. All of which we ask in your most holy and precious name. Amen. [ANSWERS IN UNISON] [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the journal for Wed., June 26, 2013, is been examined and been found to be correct. I move its approval as written [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore moves that the journal for June 26 be approved as written. All in favor say Aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Petitions, memorials or papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House? Ratification of bills and resolutions: The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ? Senate Bill 205: An Act ? Senate 613 An Act the North Carolina Military ? Commission. Senate Bill 635: An Act to clarify ? transmission lines. House Bill 832: An Act ? public health by increasing access to immunization, vaccines and to include the expanded role of immunizing pharmacies ? representative of the Secretary of State. House Bill 143: An Act to allow the City of Eden to negotiate an annexation ? House Bill 3010: An Act ? House 409: An Act to remove certain ? in the corporate limits of City of Shelby. House Bill 412: the City of ? to enter into agreements for payments in lieu of annexation. House Bill 490: An Act to change the banner of election for the Lee county Board of Election ? the City of Sanford ?. House Bill 544: An act amending the charter of the City of ? to delete language that restricted limiting the length of term for a member of the Civl Service Commission. House Bill 551: An Act to create a Farmers Benefit Fund. House Bill 553: An Act to modify Carteret county's authority to issue a one percent Room Occupancy and Tourism Development tax and distribution of proceeds of the tax. [PAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To move the Rule 12D be suspended for the day. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bills to be noted. [PAUSE] [GAVEL] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I think we have a moment hear. I think you all share the pride that the Chair has. The Chair would like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to our great Chancellor Randy Woodson from North Carolina State University. And here's why: on Tuesday, "US News & World Report" ranked NC State as the top land-grant institution in the country in STEM education. Randy, please stand and let us offer our thanks. [APPLAUSE] [PAUSE] We have and Wolf Pack fans up there with the students there? Did I see somebody do this? There you go. Reps. Howard, Lewis and then ? [CUTS OFF]

as important for the right place and how are you a successor to buy as many houses are of Manasseh I search our sales rate rose to a Sunday night was erased on ??decency, some of their own teller has made by each of the united user was in the already low but I knew that it was in a sub sea knight was initialed it all, a substitute, resigned on gas house built in 1970 using carbon copy center was made signers and, at least a substitute a glass case of students encountered the substitute one other time hour has been 165 mental state races law cities got was scratched out the numbers and operate was not a substitute one in a subsidy has encountered a substantive role of firewall tower exit and mayor has supported one already licensed a right or judiciary subcommittee being sent down tree 99 rebounds and-white jury from our payroll status as the number eight ways and means it may substitute house may substitute counters and a substitute was a raw power(SPEAKER CHANGES) city of Cincinnati for a site for decades of humans at the white rose nested times you operate was as it may substitute has been a substitute, sage may substitute on fire will counter house bills in sense of the Nevada are on registration also a residence at the time was the result they are and Sara Lee reporters in action , a substance and a concept to the report today on as a result of able to residents have more than a dozen for the panel in message and Laurence Powell operations and asked city now requires an altar on tours the monster for the date was ousted insert the opera center operator was the house besides time and one house base of university counter house may substitute one on payroll tower as resolution irony, sits on the role of certain the council of Oregon partially taken hold in such audio residents-time they went higher density by all accounts, the city sent a 180 operations and optional disaster assigned to the Congress adopt time as a medium getters in a Russian markets and just say that 181 of the leisure time Roberts extradition side of the numbers and out of Saturday of each gene right worksheets the ??person transfer as rare as important today, scored the only do the buses and this time doesn't have the support of rows of interest me to send us a residual city the whole trip time the body of the common at the lattes are cited by the Sony in education in eight countries are meant to send astronauts into the picture or 917 seven and as a center at the entrance to the recent house residents residents are Austria june, saying the U.S. laws enter ???? one ?? in the needy ??and a one line is a nasty and you're not hire ??as chairman of the recognizes events out Thailand for our gender shoes are all in one-person 21 starts and county chairs editors and courtesies of the hour is at the Cornell Edison right times it was right under our three children are somehow take a long trial are using the server manager are ......................

Speaker: So I would like to extend the courtesies of the floor to Representative Hamilton’s beautiful little girl, Parker Hamilton, who is serving as an honorary base today. Please stand and let us welcome you. [clapping] Speaker: Ladies and gentleman we are moving to the calendar. The chair would ask the members if there is any objection to grouping the first two bills that are on third reading roll call, house bill 421 and house bill 567, is there objection? House bill 421 and house bill 567, the clerk will read. Clerk: Senate committee house bill 421, an act to remove certain scrap property from corporate limits to down of Marcheville. Senate committee for house bill 567, an act for removing certain scrap property from corporate limits to city of Lumberton. Speaker: Further discussion, further debate on third reading roll call? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House bill 421 and house bill 567 on their 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: 110 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The house has concurred in the third reading on House bill 421 and house bill 567, the bills being enrolled. House bill 261, the clerk will read. Clerk: Senate committee for house bill 261 entitled an act for removing certain ascribed property from corporate limits to the City of kanapolis and [xx]. Speaker: Representative Brandon, the gentleman wishes to be recorded as having voted aye on the prior concurrence vote. The gentleman is being recorded on 421 and 567. Representative Ford, please state your purpose. Representative: For a motion. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. Representative: Motion to concur on 261, it is a local bill and I would appreciate your support. Speaker: Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the motion to concur in the senate committee substitute on House bill 261. All in favor vote aye, all…actually we can do voice vote. All in favor say aye. [aye]. All opposed say no. [silence] The aye’s have it. The house has concurred and the senate committee substitute for House bill 261, the bill will be enrolled. House bill 526, the clerk will read. Clerk: Senate committee substitute for house bill 526, a bill entitled an act adding certain scrap properties to corporate limits in the town of Chatford. Speaker: Representative Wydell, please state your purpose. Representative: For a motion and to debate the motion. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. Representative: Mr. Speaker, members of the house, I vote that the house do concur with house bill 526, it is a local bill and I do appreciate your support. Speaker: Representative Vaskerville, please state your purpose. Representative: I accidentally put my light on Mr… Speaker: Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the motion to concur on senate committee substitute of House bill 526. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Jackson. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 113 having voted in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The house has concurred in the senate committee substitute of house bill 526, the bill will be enrolled. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. Representative: A motion to remove a bill from the calendar. Speaker: The gentleman may state his motion. Representative: Mr. Speaker, at the request of Representative Sane, who is a primary sponsor, I move that house bill 700, ominous state information and technology changes, be moved from the calendar and referred to the subcommittee for IT without appropriations. Speaker: Without objection, so ordered. House bill 343, the clerk will read. Clerk : Senate committee substitute 2 for House bill 343, a bill entitled an act to eliminate arbitration caps on district courts to make clarifications to court fees, to amend the motion fees, to require counties and municipalities to advance fees

?? people payment of criminal cost fees and to remove the sunset on changes to certain fees collected by the register of deeds. [Speaker Change] Representative Turner please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] For a motion, and to debate the motion. [Speaker Change] The lady's recognized for a motion, and to debate the motion. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members this has come back to us from the Senate with two minor changes. I would appreciate your concurring with the motion. [Speaker Change] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate committee substitute number 2 for house bill 343. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 114 having voted affirmative, none in the negative. The House has concurred and the Senate committee substitute number 2 for house bill 343. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor by special message. House bill 543 the clerk will read. [Speaker Change] To the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House Representative is calling for your support to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on house 543. A bill to entitled an act addressing ?? guardianship roles for corporations and individuals that provide mental health, developmental disabilities, or substance abuse services. The ?? recommend the Senate and House Representatives adopt this report, ?? for the Senate, Senator Randallman Chair, Senators Beranger, and Robinson. Copies for the House of Representatives, Representative Jones Chair, Representative Avila, Turner, and Glazier. [Speaker Change] Representative Jones please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To withdraw the conference report Mr. Speaker, and I would like to be recognized for a motion. [Speaker Change] The gentleman's recognized for a motion. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Having voted on the prevailing side I move to reconsider the motion to not concur on the Senate committee substitute for house bill 543. Mr. Speaker if I may be recognized to debate the motion. [Speaker Change] The gentleman's recognized to debate the motion. Members I know this is a bit unusual, but I think this can be a win, win, win situation for us. I'd like for us to score a point for bipartisanship if you will. I'd like for us to score a point for the House of Representatives. But most importantly I'm trying to pass a bill out that is extremely important to a few of the citizens of our state. Last week I asked you to not concur on this Senate committee substitute for the simple reason that a technical change needed to be made. The Senate had added a phrase to the bill that was unnecessary and quite honestly was to seem not to affect anybody. We were gonna take that out and bring it back to you and have it fixed in a conference report. However the Senate has decided at this point not to hear any of the house bills on the floor or on the calendar. And as I said this is a bill that may not be that important to most people but is extremely important to a few people in our state. And so what we're going to do with your help is that we're going to reconsider the motion not to concur. I'm gonna ask you to vote no on that option. And then we're gonna vote to concur, and we'll take care of the technical change, and the technical bill. And Mr. Speaker if Representative Glazier could be recognized, I think he would like to speak to this as well. [Speaker Change] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To speak to the motion Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] The gentleman's recognized to debate the motion. [Speaker Change] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I concur in what Representative Jones is suggesting. I was the one on our side of the aisle on the conference report, it really was a technical change we were trying to accomplish. And at this point it's more important to get the bill passed and then deal with technical issue, and a technical corrections bill. I would move that we support the motion to reconsider, and then again support what will follow, which is a motion to concur, thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Inquiry of the chair. [Speaker Change] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I believe Representative Jones perhaps misspoke when he suggested we vote no on his first motion to not concur. And then vote yes on the motion to concur. [Speaker Change] Well actually just by way of clarification that the gentleman's remarks were out of order. The first matter of business before us is to, to reconsider the prior vote. [Speaker Change] Understood. [Speaker Change] And then, and the chair based on the comments here would encourage members to vote for it. Whether or not I should be saying that I don't know, but that's what I meant. And then after we get it reconsidered there will be another motion to deal with the concurrence vote. It's kind of a reset. Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the motion by Representative Jones to reconsider the vote on the Senate committee substitute for house bill 543. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

?? machine will record the vote. 114 having recorded the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion passes. Now the bill is back before us. The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. And for motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion. If I understand correctly Mr. Speaker, what I would like to do at this point, the motion that we are considering is the motion two not to concur, which we voted last week. So before we can bring up the motion to concur, I'm believe we need to vote no on that motion to not concur. Can I move to concur? Two negatives make a positive or something like that. Mr. Speaker I move that we concur with the Senate committee ?? for House Bill 543. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that a not not concur to a not not concurrence? Okay. Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may state her point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can we get clarification? [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes vote green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the motion to concur. In the Senate committee substitute for House 543. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, record the vote for the note. All members please record ?? machine record the vote? ?? will be recorded as having voted aye. 113 voting in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House has concurred in the Senate committee substitute for House Bill 543. The be ordered enrolled and sent to the Governor. Will be sent by special message. Senate bill 127 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for Senate bill 127 will be able to ?? the Department of Commerce to contract with a North Carolina non-profit corporation for the performance of certain economic development functions. Johnson and North Carolina you're next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. We had a fruitful discussion yesterday and a good vote for bill and I just want to reiterate that interlinking the Department of Commerce with the private sector for job creation and economic development will benefit our state and help us create jobs and be competitive with our neighbors. Right now the Secretary of Commerce is with the North Carolina economic developers association and there's a healthy positive buzz about this concept in that group. They're having a panel discussion about this issue with former secretaries of commerce from other states that surround us in Virginia and South Carolina, which have followed, Virginia's followed this pattern and they've seen positive results from this effort and I'd ask members to continue their support and I'd be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question for the House is passed to the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 127 on it's third reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, record the vote for the note. The ?? machine record the vote. 85 having voted in the affirmative, 28 in the negative. The House committee substitute to senate bill 127 has passed it's third reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] being grossed and returned to the Senate. Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Senate bill 174, for short title disapprove industrial commission rules, the bill is going to be recorded in in just a bit from ?? form. Has a serial referred to Judiciary subcommittee A. I move that that serial referral be stricken at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. Senate bill 132. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Commanded substitute for Senate Bill 132 have ?? the entitlement act to include instruction in the school health education program on the preventable causes or pre-term birth including induced abortion as a cause of pre-term birth and subsequent pregnancies. General assembly of North Carolina enacts.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative stamp for the gentleman is recognized. Upon motion I have two different groups to recognize in the gallery. Upon motion will the gentleman from Stokes county, Representative Holloway, the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to friends and family, Danny and Frida Talley. Is it Tally or Jalley? You've got to get with Representative Hirley on.

[SPEAKER CHANGES] …cursive writing. Also upon motion, Representative Nathan Baskerville from Vance County, the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Greg Kelly and members of the Franklin County Boys and Girls Club, both groups please stand and let us welcome you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Sam is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I wonder as a request if Representative Jean Farmer-Butterfield and I have collaborated on an amendment that she's offered so if we could hear that first then we would have the thing before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Farmer-Butterfield, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Farmer-Butterfield moves to amend the bill on page 1 line 30 by deleting the phrase. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, this is one of my amendments yesterday. I had two and the second one was never heard and the Representative Sam and I collaborated and here's the amendment. Page 1 line 30 and on page 2 line 6 and 7, as well as the amendment one. What it does is basically remove or delete, the cause of, and substitute, risk for, throughout the bill where appropriate and I ask for your support. As I said yesterday, there's a difference between risk and cause and I gave an example, so I just ask for your vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Sam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Functionally they're the same thing, but risk is not incorrect, and I will – if you pass this, I will inform the Surgeon General of the United States that he needs to change the warnings on his labels on cigarettes as well. But I do appreciate that Representative Jean Farmer-Butterfield working with me on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are lights on, are there any member wishing to speak on the debate or on the amendment will please keep their lights on, all others please turn them off. Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I did had an intern doing little research, what other states are doing on this topic and I would urge you to support this amendment, because our neighbors in Virginia teach risk instead of causes. I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fulghum, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate Representative Farmer-Butterfield's offering this amendment that we did disagree in committee on the use of risk and cause, frankly, because I thought they were interchangeable and I still do. I think it's a distinction without a difference and I appreciate her willingness to offer this amendment and I support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment, if not the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forward by Representative Farmer-Butterfield for the Senate Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 132. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 110 having voted in the affirmative, and 4 in the negative, the amendment passes. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the floor to a good friend and former member of this body, Representative Mark Hilton. Mark, welcome back. Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. As soon as the minority leader clears the line. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I really appreciate the amendment that was just done, which improves the bill, but still wish to speak to a couple of points and why I'm still opposed to the bill. You know, it is – one thing to engage in the medical discussion we've engaged in, in the House and this at least takes us part of the way to what some of the medical evidence might suggest. But I want to remind us what we're doing. We are not talking about this information being given to adults or put in even high school…

Or university curriculum,in any of those programs.We are talking about changing the curriculum and the standard courses study for sexuality courses for seventh graded,who are 12 and 13 years old.So i spent last night and talked with ?? teachers.To all of the sexuality education,educators in the state ??university,and they are now infact in institute with those educators in ??The standard courses study is all about prevention and also talks a lot on topics,it has never ever addressed the issue of abortion.The courses study doesn't do that for a lot of reasons.First,show a few states changing the very few states of the country addressive,because it is fought with clinical issues and analogical issues and very significan as we know on this world family and spiritual and religious issues. Forget the medical issued that we pull out there. None of the evidence space programme that any sexuality education, educator have on the national scale teach a portion as a factor of risk or cause to pretime abortion, pretine birth and they do that impart to protect the teachers. Sec ondly to protect the children in this world. No.1 if you are a teacher think about what we are asking them to do. This is ?? built for us. As this topic is understandable everytime we talk about it in any way. And, now we are asking teachers who have gone with ?? reputation walked up ??? what they can say and cannot say for fear or alienating one set of plan and another and one set of views on this two and other and puting none of the decisions having to decide and that is fundamentally unfair. It may be fair, if there was a consensus on the medical science but there is not. It may be fair, if this was atleast ?? information but it not. I am a preprogressive guy on all things but I will not allow my twelve year daughter coming home having learnt about abortions in schools where cause ??? what they look like and we are ?? with all those respect to my college we spent a couple of years ago on two hours to train sexuality education. And it was repeatedly said to keep mom that they did not want any comprehensive option but we suddenly didn't want to showing and teaching or even having children understand about condoms. And so we don't want to say condoms to protecting pregnance ?? but we are sure on abortion looks like and all the ways you get it. That makes no sense to be at all as a parent or as a legislature. This is ??? and we try to do on these course of studies everywhere, three factors. One is the coursable teaching something about which ?? consensus in the medicine, No. Is the age appropriate for twelve and thirteen years old ? Not in my opinion at all. And No.3 is it for potential to create few risk on teachers what they teach it and how they teach it. Because of ?? both ways and absolutely true. We will open up again doors ?? that we will never be able to close ?? and we are not to scare teachers ?? and the result will be one of the three things. I feel, 1. number of teachers will simply avoid this curriculam and they would disregard the law and frankly I would blame them and they would do that they would be able to say 100 other things on the curriculam which didn't have time to get there. 2nd option they would try to comply with the law but inevitable when John or Jane or Becky come home and they tell Mom about abortion at school they will be ?? to pay at that school the next day. Well third....

They will actually try to teach it, they will try to get the best information they can, and then the twelve year who barely can figure out, and who we don't want to learn about condoms and pregnancy prevention methods, we are not just asking them to learn in this bill about abortions. We're asking them to connect the dots, that if they have abortions, they will lead to pre-term births or miscarriages. Seriously. This is a bill being passed by adults for ideological purposes, without any understanding on its effect in the classroom, or consequences, or ability of a twelve year old to connect the dots. To tell them that they- a twelve year old- is supposed to make the connection that if they have an abortion, and by the way, the difference between medical and surgical, and how many you have, and what that is, that they may then later on in life have a miscarriage. Does anyone here have twelve or thirteen year old children, who they honestly think would make that connection? And understand it? I'm not opposed, I've read the medicine, I've read the medicine, I've read it and I do believe there is some evidence that this is true, as to surgical, multiple surgical interventions. I do not believe it is true to medical interventions. But even if I understood that,I don't want this kind of topic being taught to a twelve year old, who can't get it, and all it will do is open up inevitably incredibly difficult questions that we are asking the teacher to answer. That is unfair. It is unfair to the public schools, it is unfair to the teacher, it is unfair to the child, it is unfair to the families. And we should defeat this bill on that basis. If you want to create this option, atleast we ought to be doing it at the highschool level and above, and we ought to be doing it with the expertise of everyone involved at a stakeholder table, and a decision with educators from across the country, and medical personnel, to figure out how to do this. We don't even have a curriculum! And by golly, I can't imagine we're gonna get one in the next few months. We can't even agree on the science on the floor. This is just unfair to what we're doing to children in the public schools. And if we're talking about, and please don't argue back to me, we want them to have all the information. You want them to have all the information, we should be talking to them about condoms as well. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Whake wish to be recognized? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the gentleman from Whake, Rep. Stan would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stan do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stan, you've just heard the argument, could you, enlighten us, on where all of the other provisions within this particular section that are to be taught on sexual health in the seventh grade came from? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I will, and it is so ironic, in drafting, we only include there section, subsection 4, but 4a was the Health to Youth act, primarily sponsored by Rep. Glazier about three years ago, and under his legislation, the same seventh graders learn about STD's, how they are and are not transmitted, effectiveness of various contraceptives, rates of infection among pre-teens, should I go on and on? In other words, they- Representative Glazier insisted, and a majority of this house barely passed, a bill insisting that beginning in seventh grade, because we got to get them early, because they might get pregnant if they don't know this, all of the details of human reproduction, and all the permutations and combinations of diseases and all that kinda thing. But lo and behold we can't talk about what happens if you get pregnant, and then what happens if you want to have a subsequent pregnancy. We know that 75% of people who go to an abortion clinic want to have a future family, a future pregnancy. To deny this information, when Rep. Glazier's given them the whole, what's her name, Dr. Ruth handbook, is so ironic. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Rep. Glazier wish to be recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see with respect if Rep. Stan would yield for one, or no more than two questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stan, do you yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stan, you would agree would you not, until we get to I, what you've added, that the rest of that act was based totally on the issue of prevention. On stopping children from getting pregnant, the focus was preventing pregnancy, is that not correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would say that's... [end of audio]

…major part of the focus, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Second question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you representative. And would you agree with me that nowhere in that discussion last time or in here, nowhere did we ever mention that there aught to be a teaching about abortion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree with that, and it's irrelevant to the bill before us for the reason stated previously. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the Lady from Buncombe, Representative Fisher, wish to be recognized? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, I rise in opposition to this bill today and I will tell you why. I know your not surprised but I wanted to take a break for just a second from men debating the facts of women's sexuality and talk to you about how this directly effects young women and girls and to talk also about what's missing in this legislation. We are getting ready to change the healthful living curriculum in North Carolina and what's missing, in my mind, is the fact that this bill never went to an education committee. This is curriculum change that we're making. Was this bill ever referred to an education committee? I don't think so. Was there an opportunity for public comment? And during the debate on the Healthy Youth Act, as Representative Stam will recall, I'm sure, we were bound to call on the public to comment on every step along the way during the debate on the Healthy Youth Act. No public comment. No referral to education . And there is that inconsistency that we've heard, at least our male colleagues talk about that we don't want to teach about contraception but we sure as heck want to teach about abortion. And another question might be, why would you remove from the budget the Child Fatality Taskforce when this is one of the primary committees that have to do with protecting children, unborn children for that matter, from the health risks during pregnancy. We're getting ready to take away one of those primary committees. And then what about the fact that in the senate budget, at least, and what leaves the budget up for contention, is the idea that the budget would take thousands of pregnant women of the Medicaid roles. And what does that say about our willingness to make sure that children are not born preterm? And then a bigger question might be, Is the Healthy Youth Act working? Is the Healthful Living curriculum as it is right now working? And I have to tell you that teen pregnancy is at the lowest level in history. And because of that, teen abortions have dropped 78% since they peeked in 1988. Put more simply, when you prevent a pregnancy, when you prevent a pregnancy, abortion is never a factor. So with all of this, I ask you to vote no, because we may not have invited public opinion or public comment during the debate on this legislation but I guarantee you that once we start teaching about abortion in the classrooms, you are going to get parent comment. Please vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker Tillis will need to ratify the following bills. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Enrolling clerk reports the following bill duly ratified for presentation to the Governor, House Bill 343 "An Act to Eliminate Arbitration Caps in District Court, to Make Clarifications to Court Fees, to Amend the Motion Fee Exemption, to Require Counties and Municipalities to Advance Fees", and the following bills are due to ratify duly ratified, properly enrolled and presented to the…

Secretary of State House Bill 261 and after removing certain describe properties from the corporate limits to the city of Kanopilis today. The property to the corporate limits to the city of Landis House Bill 421 and after removing certain described property from the corporate limits of the town of Marksville House Bill 526 adding certain described properties corporate limits of the town of Chadburn House Bill 567 and after removing certain described properties from the corporate limits of the city of Lumberton. For all purposes, this gentleman from Cumberland Representative Lucas wish to be recognized. To offer an amendment. You may send forth the amendment the Clerk will read. Representative Lucas moves to amend the bill on page one, lines two through five by rewriting the lines to read. You may debate the amendment. Thank you, Mister Speaker. My amendment opposes a conservative approach to this issue. Conservative, now I believe many of us believe in conservatism. Right now, we’re taking a giant liberal leap with this bill and liberalism sometimes is not what we want. This conservative amendment would one prevent us from taking that giant leap to conceive that the real purpose of health, youth activity that is abstinence did not work. Whenever we do this bill, we’re saying that abstinence doesn’t work and I think may sometimes I concur. The second part of this amendment would, uh, state that we believe that we don’t need to move and teach kids about sexual activity. The third is that we’re conceding that contraception doesn’t work. We didn’t believe in that anyway, but we’ll skipping all these parts what we go over to what we’re doing now. The fourth part is that there will be some kind of dissension about a pregnancy that either they’ll be a birth or they’ll be a termination and when we get all down to the meat of what this bill does and it talks about subsequent pregnancies. Notice how we’ve skipped with all this liberal leap, down to subsequent pregnancies where we’re talking about what it may do to again, what it may do to pre-term births, not what it will, but what it may do to pre-term births. With my amendment, if you wish to leave all of the liberal approach, giant leap approach in the bill, then you can do so, because it leaves all of the content intact, but the amendment gives our LEAs discretion as to how much of this is appropriate to their locale. It’s like, almost like profanity. It gives the local LEAs an opportunity to determine how much of this is appropriate for their students. I commend the amendment. For all purposes, the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stan wish to be recognized. I too, uh, speak on the amendment and then, uh, make motion. Uh, you recognize to speak on the amendment. At the conclusion of my remarks, I’m gonna, uh, uh, move the table because what this is of course is totally gutting the bill. Essentially it’s just the negative of the bill. It just leaves section two, um, I think this failure of life in here, we either have to deal with, uh, prevention of pregnancy or what to do after pregnancy, but you can’t do both. Well, that’s a failure of life. Some people will get pregnant and some of them who don’t get pregnant may not get, may refuse to get pregnant because they realize that they want to have a healthy child when they’re old enough to have that healthy child. The Speaker, I move to, uh, that the, uh, that the amendment lie on the table. Second. The motion for the house is the amendment offered by Representative Lucas rely upon the table. All in favor will vote aye. All oppose will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote.

record the words 68 votes in the motion and 38 against the motion ?? back on the bill ?? ?? you recognize on speak on the bill [speaker change] ladies and gentlemen of the house ?? which used to hear the bay here from members who are presenting a ?? we send them to the table and there they lie I appreciate this opportunity to speak again on this bill, you heard lot of the good reason while this is a very bad bill, we had a lot of debate on yesterday about it there were many things that were said that needs to be reemphasized today in the things that ?? say we need to talk a little bit about but i want to first repeat what about you said ?? its all about entire choice and limiting axes to abortion, that's really what is all about [speaker change] ?? [speaker change] ?? [speaker change] we are here for what purpose ?? will be recognized ?? [speaker change]?? [speaker change] ?? i believe that she is attacking the motives of the person which are ?? rules [speaker change] noted i would remind the member to not question motives of the sponsors of the bill [speaker change] miss speaker i am talking about the bill and thank you for allowing me to continue to do that and i agree with the lady, it is my opinion ?? many of the constituency ?? me, that that's what this was ?? is about, i think as i heard ?? ?? talk about the healthy fact and i wanna say that for our sponsors, co-sponsor the ?? because clearly ?? ?? need to be very wise and educated about their health and that's what really the goal of that bill was, prior to the ?? for those of who have just arrived in this chamber the only education in this area that students receive was ?? ?? now i certainly support ?? but when i look around and see what's actually going on in the community that is not worth what young people are doing entirely so that's the reason for to help the youth and providing for parents, who wanted to choose a better way, a more comprehensive approach to sex education for their children, they now have an opportunity to so this, they want just ?? they can refer ?? chosen to that type of curriculum, so we have that kind of ?? our schools, but i think that ?? inject properly ?? into the curriculum it promotes an entire choice in the ?? politics over science [speaker change] ?? [speaker change] again the point of order is attacking motives and personal credibility of members of the body ?? [speaker change] mister speaker may i ask you a question? [speaker change] ?? [speaker change] how is my talking about the bill i am not talking about any people, i am talking about legislation that's what everybody else is talking about what can i talk about [speaker change] ?? in the chair has noted that you need to confined your ?? to the bill and not to the motives of the sponsors ?? [speaker change] thank you mister speaker [speaker change] if you could ?? [speaker change] i will do that its about the ?? members, let me just say again that as already been said i think we have to emphasize where these ?? will be ?? i have four grand children if you have grand children ?? smart, but i think it remains at risk when we talk about eleven ?? some of those ?? eleven year old and now are twelve, my grand sons gonna be ?? is he happens to be quite smart young one ?? but i think single ?? abortion pretty risk

really not educating our children in terms of promoting healthy pregnancies, and we have to go back to the medical organizations that have been cited here that have found no evidence linking abortion to any later adverse effects on a woman’s reproductive health. I also want to talk a little bit about the teachers who I’ve heard from. I’ve heard from a lot of those today who are very, very concerned about what we’re imposing on them in the classroom now. I think if we’re really concerned about addressing preterm births, and that’s really what some of this seems to be about, keeping mothers healthy, why aren’t we increasing programs to reduce some of the other things that cause it maybe – diabetes, high blood pressure, alcoholism and so on? And those things are actually recognized as causes of preterm births, so why aren’t we doing that? As far as I’m concerned, what this bill boils down to, and people just don’t like to hear that word abortion, but I think it’s more about that and more about providing information for children that’s really not supported by science. Now one of the things that concerns me, and I think Representative Fisher mentioned that too, is what we’re doing to mothers who are pregnant. We’re eliminating them from the budget if they are at a certain income and at a very, very low income, and so that’s a problem as well. Now I think all of us can agree, whether you agree with em about abortion or not, I think we can all agree that we’re talking about children and we’re talking about education and what will be taught in school, and so I have to agree that this bill should have gone to the Education Committee. When we talk about education and we make policy for our educators to follow, the procedure here has been that those bills go through education. This bill was heard in Health and Human Services; there was, as has been said, no public comment allowed in the committee. That’s not the way we involve our public, by not letting them speak or have their say, and you’re going to hear from them if you haven’t heard from them already. We should be concerned about what parents think, we should be concerned about what teachers think, and we should want to know what they think about what we’re asking them to teach children in the 6th, 7th and 8th grades about abortion. We did get input, as Representative Fisher has said, when we were promoting the Healthy Youth Act. We had several hearings on that. We heard from the public then. Why aren’t we hearing from the public now? We allowed input in the Education Committee when this bill was heard and all the other committees. It didn’t just go to Education; it went everywhere, and at every stop of the way we were able to get the input. And then I just want to make a comment about the Child Fatality Task Force. I think they’ve done a good job in their work, but obviously we don’t think that. We eliminated them from the budget, and some of the things I’ve read, they might have been a little bit intimidated ?? and so they came out with this recommendation. It was not unanimous. There was contention in the committee; all you have to do is read the minutes to see that. But nevertheless, today’s earlier amendments that Representative Farmer-Butterfield had at least made it somewhat consistent. The last thing I want to say about this bill is I think the last part of it indicates that the curriculum – it refers to a curriculum that the health officials will prepare, and I asked a question yesterday if they’d been contacted and there’s been no discussion with them about it, and when we started the Healthy Youth Act, we did have a curriculum that we worked toward that we knew was going to be included before we actually voted it out, so I think we’re… probably I can’t say the word that my grandmother would say, but I think we’re doing it backwards if we want to do it at all, and for those of you whose grandmothers said the same thing, you know what I’m talking about, but let me just end by saying that

We are not helping our children with this bill. We are creating problems for teachers. We are creating concerns for so many parents and we are going to confuse a whole lot of young people who are just not going to be able to benefit in the way we say we want them to benefit from education. It's a bad bill for education, it's a bad bill for our children, and it is a very bad bill for North Carolina. Vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For our purposes the gentleman from Moore-- excuse me, gentleman from Cleveland representing Moore wishes to be recognized.[SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion Mr. Speaker.[SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized for a motion.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker we had a very good debate on this yesterday at this time I would move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question for the House, is to move the previous question. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. The court will open to vote. Clerk will lock the machine to record the vote. With 67 voting in favor of the motion and 43 voting against, the motion passes. As per rule, the minority leader is recognized, or may recognize his designee to debate the bill for three minutes. First Senator Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and I think it would be appropriate as this bill affects so many women in our community, I would designate Representative Adams to take three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, you are recognized to debate, to speak to the bill for no more than three minutes.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker I won't need three minutes. It is a very very bad bill as I've said it's bad for North Carolina. It's especially bad for our children. We're creating a situation where we're trying to indoctrinate children. We are levying this kind of-- on teachers we are trying to get them to teach things that many of them may not even know about and we have a concern as well about the curriculum which is not before us. We don't know what people are going to say to our children. Our parents are concerned. If you haven't heard from 'em, I certainly have. And when we talk about healthy birth, healthy birth outcomes are directly tied to healthy birth mothers. And so we need to be concerned about passing legislation in this house, that would help increase the ability for mothers who have children, who are having children, to make sure that those children are healthy and that they're healthy in the process. There are lots of things that we could do that we could have done in our budget. And hopefully some of those things will come out but basically the things that are on the table right now are really counteracting healthy births. The other thing we have to do - we can not discredit organizations who have been recognized nationally. Who have said to this general assembly, who have said to communities, organizations like the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, American Academy of Pediatrics, that there is no link that would cause or would ?? a cause or risk as it relates to abortion. This is just another attempt in a long list of bills we've seen that have come through this general assembly that really create problems for younger people who might have personal decisions and I'm not calling any names, but we can all disagree, but I think we have to agree that what we must give to our children must be the right information. That what our teachers must be required to teach to children must be the right information. And we must make sure that our parents are involved in this process. We have totally left them out. We have not provided an opportunity for them to have input. They'll read about it tomorrow in the paper. They'll be calling us after the fact, and that is not the way we should be operating in this general assembly. That is not the way we should be. We say we represent citizens in North

North Carolina, whether they're men because I can tell you a lot of men are concerned about this too because they have the children who will be going to these schools. It is a bad bill, we should not be shaming young girls. Vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaking for majority will be the gentleman from Wake, Representative Fulghum you have three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman I hope this closes a discussion that has wondered into the weeds. facts are stubborn things. Fact: Average age of puberty now is about nine years old for girls and boys. You want to just keep them in the dark for an additional several years about things that may affect their ability to reproduce, have an enjoyable life, have a decent chance at not making mistakes that will come back to haunt them later? Teach them, respect them, tell them the truth. If the teachers in this state can't take that on as a task then they're not adequate to their jobs, that's what they do for a living. And I think the truth is the Child Fatality Task Force is not killed, it's in the budget for this year. It is true that it's a possibility it might not be in next year and I've advocated keeping it in for very good reasons and we'll do our best to make that happen. 4000 abortions were done in 2009 according to the CDC under the age of 15. Children are having abortions, children are sexually active. If you don't believe your 12 year old driving your car you better wake up. If you don't believe that nine and ten year olds experimenting with sex you better wake up. This is a good bill, tells the truth, doesn't hide the truth, all the risk factors that are mentioned in there need to be clear to these children. It can be done in a decent scientifically factual way, annually it can be revised by the public health people that will do that. I recommend the bill to you, it is good science and it's good public policy. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the passage of the senate committee substitute to senate bill 132 on its third reading. All in favor of this passage will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. With 68 voting in favor of the passage senate bill 132 and 42 against the bill passes and will be returned to the senate. Senate bill 638 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute number two for senate bill 638 a bill [??] act, the enacted North Carolina farm act of 2010 to limit the liability of North Carolina commodity producers arising from food safety issues related to their products, limit the liability of farm animal activities, sponsors farm animal professionals and [??] tourism operation to raiders and clarified the equine recreation where the land owner receives no compensation is subject to the recreational use statute and not the equine activity liability statute. Allow the commissioner of agriculture to assess non-monetary penalties to address violations when appropriate. Decrease the frequency of the agricultural water use survey, limit the personally identifying information that the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services may disclose about its animal health programs. Make conformic changes to the name of the structural pest control and pest [??] division. Clarify the responsibilities of the division, amend certain EGG labeling requirements, repeal the interstate pest control compact, repeal certain cleanliness standards for creameries and dairy facilities that are addressed by the North Carolina Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. Change setback distances and burn times for flammable materials resulting from ground clearing activities. Repeal the state sulpher content standards for gasoline, exempt forestry and civic culture operations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will yield Representative Langdon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it everyone has looked at the bill you'll find that there's a lot of things in this bill> what we were designed to do was bring relief to our ag community from small business and large farmers and Department of Agriculture stakeholders. Agriculture continues to be the foundation of our state, it's a 70 plus billion dollar industry.

Always close to 20%, employs close to 20% of North Carolina work force and brings 6%, it grew 6% during the recession. We need to do all we can to help the industry. And this bill does that. Part 2 of the bill provides the producers certified but yet USDA, GAP and GHB audit verification program or similar program designated by the Commission of Ag. Have rebuttal ?? against charges of negligence. Part 3 eases the worry for petting zoos and animal exhibits and educational programs using animals in their curriculum with insurance. One of the issues that we’ve had in recent history is our, and we’ve even had some tough times this year when petting zoos were not available because the farmers could not get insurance. So that’s an important kind of connection that we needed to actually fix. Part 4 gives North Carolina Department of Agriculture Boards, Commissions and Divisions with authority to access civil penalties to access ?? monetary penalties when appropriate. It addresses the underlying violations. Part 5 decreases the frequency of the survey of persons who withdraws 10,000 gallons per day or more for agricultural purposes from annually to biannually. And this is a water draw. Part 6 provides with that no information collected by the Department of Ag. or its animal health programs, including certificates of veterinarian inspection, animal medical records, laboratory reports and so forth, to protect the private business when they do that. Part 7 corrects the name of the Structural Pest Control and Pesticides Division. It was Structural Pest Control Division. That changed and was already been in place so we needed to change that name that happened in 2006. Part 8 would allow retailers to advertise eggs for sale in the same matter as other produce. And retailers have asked for this. We had different signage for eggs so, in the grocery store they had to do it different, because it had to be a certain height and all that kind of stuff, and what we’re doing is to allow them to do it the way they do everything else. Part 9 repeals the Interstate Pest Control Compact. They have, was formed in 1968 but is no longer in use so this is to, the Department of Ag. takes care of these kinds of things now in another way. Part 10 will conform setback distances and burn times for debris, stumps, brush and other flammable materials resulting from ground clearing activities occurring to current state statutes. Part 11 repeals the sulfur content standards and gasoline found in GS11926-.2 and what it now is the standards, EPA standards so we didn’t need, excuse me, didn’t need that. Part 12 exempts forestry and civil ?? operations from the Department of Transportation to temporary driveway permit processes for state roads except for controlled access facilities. If a temporary driveway operator has complete, completed an education course on Timbering Access and obtains safety certifications. This is for forestry. Part 13 exempts migrant housing from requirements for insulation of an, I have an automatic sprinkler system, itbuilding meets certain building requirements. The requirements are real strong, migrant housing is safe because of what it’s constructed of so that’s not a real big problem. And part, the next part, in addition Part 13 allows foreign building that is used for public or, for private ?? events, such as weddings or other things, to remain to be foreign buildings, they don’t have to actually meet some of the guidelines.

Part 14 repeals the prohibition on retails displaying more than 400 square foot, feet, of nursery and stock in their parking lots. Nurseries sell products by vision, people seeing them, so this allows them to have more than 400 square feet. Part 15 provides the current exemption from the Dam Safety Act of dams constructed to provide water for agriculture purposes. Part 16 provides nothing in the statute governing water shortage emergencies to limit a landowner from withdrawing water for use in agriculture activities when the water is withdrawn from surface water sources located wholly on the landowners property. In other words, his pond. Part 17 directs the Department of Environment and Natural Resources and Department of Transportation to jointly petition the U.S. Corps of Engineers to allow for greater flexibility and opportunity to perform wetland ?? litigation outside the watershed where development occurs. And finally, accelerate the sunset date of the petroleum displacement plan to effective dates of this act. There's a lot of information here and I remind everybody in the House this bill probably has been vetted better than any bill we've had because it went to Ag for two meetings, then it went to Judiciary and I think they spent two meetings on it. So it's a very well vetted bill and I would appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House. I would like to reiterate Representative Langdon's closing remark. This bill represents an enormous collaboration over a great deal of time by a lot of different people and like you said it went to Ag twice, it went to Judiciary twice, and I'd like to commend Representative Jordan and Representative McGrady and also Senator Jackson and the people that worked on this in the different departments. It was a great collaborative effort. Mr. Speaker I suggest that it might facilitate discussion on this, I understand that Representative Glazier has a couple of amendments. I would suggest that if it is okay that we recognize him for those amendments at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To set forth several amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the gentleman will state the amendment number. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The first amendment number would be ATQ-33, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment ATQ-33. Representative Glazier moves to amend the bill on page 2, lines 29 through 32 by rewriting those lines through read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I would agree with what Representative Dixon said that a tremendous amount of work was done and I appreciate all of the opportunity that all of us had to participate in JB and in Agriculture and Representative McGrady and Representative Jordan and this amendment along with the other two have been negotiated with Representative Dixon and through Senator Jackson with Representative Langdon and basically this is a request modifying what we did in the Judiciary Committee on part 2 of the bill and it simply makes it clear that when we're talking about granting effectively immunity or a higher burden of proof that there has to be some limitation on it and the limitation that we agreed upon is that no facility had been engaged in a circumstance where they had a judgement against them or settlement as final settlement of litigation exceeding $25,000 where they admitted liability where there was a connection to something they did that caused death or injury or illness to a consumer. Again I believe this is a consent amendment and would urge adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is passage of the amendment set forth by Representative Glazier for the House Committee substitute #2 of Senate Bill 638. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 111

Having voted in the affirmative, one in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Glaizer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To set forth the second amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will state the amendment number. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker ATQ35. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment AT-Q35V1. Representative Glaizer moves to amend the bill on page four, line nine, by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, again this is a consent amendment. This simply says that if you are in these types of actions, going to get immunity or a higher burden of proof to prove anything. The person who is seeking the defense, simply has to plead the affirmative defense of the consumer. Assume the risks for the spectator, assume the risk of the equine activity or the farm animal activities, so that it's clear that they're pleading that there was an assumption of risk. This is standard and it's in other parts of the statue. I know of no objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dickson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members I encourage you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not the question for the House is to pass it to the amendment sent forth by Representative Glaizer. For the House committee substitute of the Senate bill 638. All in favor vote aye. All opposed, vote no. Record the vote for the note. All members please record. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 112 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Glaizer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To set forth the final amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to set forth the amendment. The clerk will read. This is amendment ATQ-36. Representative Glaizer moves to amend the bill on page six, like 28, by inserting the word "physical" ?? contact. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Again this is a consent amendment and if you'll notice on page six, all it does is make clear that the contact we're talking about is direct physical contact, not indirect. Aromatic contact, which might be a real issue in these cases. So thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] President Ablouze, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glaizer will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glaizer, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glaizer, why is it that we have the equine activities have their on set of torch standards? Why aren't general torch standards considered good for all other human activities and endeavors good enough to cover the equine and how many other activities have their own specialized torch laws? Will Representative Ablouze actually completely agree with that. But this is a compromised bill that I'm not the proponent of. I'm simply trying to find the compromised middle ground and I agree with your position but you might better ask Representative Dickson or Langdon. I do think that there is some testimony before the committee that there is a need to have some additional protection in certain circumstances. I think that the committee tried to roll it back to legitimate proportions in events that are inherently risky. And they certainly are in these activities, so I'm not maybe answering as as you wish. But I think it's a compromise position. On a personal level, I don't disagree with what you're saying. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dickson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I encourage you to vote for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the House is to pass it to the amendment. Sent forth by Representative Glaizer for the House committee substitute number two Senate bill 638. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will record the vote for the note. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 108 having voted in the affirmative, 1 in the negative, the amendment passes. We're now back on the bill as amended. Further discussion, further debate. Representative McGrady. Please state your purpose. If the lady will yield. Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak on the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hesitated to rise after Representative ?? comment. But I did want to point out that one of the changes that were made in the bill as it came over from the Senate was to add House bill 756 which was reform the recreation on use statue as part of this bill. That was done with the consent of Senator Jackson and with the support of the.

[Speaker Changes] And I appreciate it. It actually, the code section that was being changed in and referenced in this bill, as it related to a wide race group of farm animals, is also the code section that applies to equine activities. And with the consent, all parties of that bill, is included in this. It passed the House by a vote of a 116 to nothing, and I might add, with Representative Blust supporting the bill. And I would too add my thanks to the chairmen, both Chairmen Jackson on the Senate side, and Chairman Dickson and Langdon and my colleagues. This bill has had a lot of vetting in two different committees and I think its a really fine reflection on I wish the way we could always work on difficult bills. I enjoyed working on it, I would recommend the bill to you. [Speaker Changes] Representative Fisher, the Chair understands the lady wishes to be recorded as having voted aye on the amendment? [Speaker Changes] Yes, thank you mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] Further discussion, further debate on the bill as amended? If not he question before the Senate is the passage of House Committee Substitute number 2 to Senate bill 638 is amended on its second reading, all in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The Clerk will record the vote. The Clerk will opt machine record the vote. 108 voted in the affirmative. 4 in the negative. The House Committee Substitute number 2 to Senate Bill 638 is amended has passed its second reading without objection will be read a third time. [Speaker Changes] General Assembly of North Carolina enact. [Speaker Changes] Representative Saine, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. speaker, to be recorded as a yes on Senate Bill 132, I was in the chamber and just didn’t make it back in time. [Speaker Changes] The Gentleman is recorded as having voted aye. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute number 2 to Senate Bill 638 as amended on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [Speaker Changes] Aye. [Speaker Changes] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 638 as amended has passed its third reading. The bill will be engrossed and returned to the Senate. [Speaker Changes] Mr Speaker. [Speaker Changes] Representative Tim Moore please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, for a motion pertaining to the calendar. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, that Senate Bill 103, short title: amend assessments for infrastructure needs, be removed from the committee on rules and placed on the afternoon supplemental calendar that will be produced later. [Speaker Changes] Without objection. So would Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, I would like to be recorded as having voted aye on the last bill please. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recorded as having voted aye. Ladies and Gentleman of the House, we are going to be taking a recess in a moment. I’ve got what may be a bad news/good news announcement. The bad news is that we are going to be having a supplemental calendar. The Chair anticipates probably only one bill that I think would be considered potentially controversial, and it will be subject to a committee meeting that would be held during recess. So today, we could be here for a few more hours. However, next week, we will have skeletal session every day next week, and there will not be committee meetings. The members will come back a week from Monday, and we will provide more information when we come back for recess. Ladies and gentleman, before we leave though, if I could get your attention before we leave. Representative Daughtry, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] For a moment of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] This is great day in the history of the General Assembly when we are about to lose Jerry Dockham, its his last day. And this is a milestone in what I have been knowing him for around 22 years and serving with him either as his seat mate or quasi seat mate and I certainly am sorry that he’s leaving but I am glad he has a golden parachute and he is moving right down the street, and if your power rates go up, we know who to call. You know you learn a lot about somebody by serving with him. You know, you don’t know him as well as I do, but most of you heard a couple days ago when Bobby Harold Barbie was eulogized, that Jerry Dockham was a slumlord. And it was so bad over there that when the thieves broke into the apartment that..

…felt sorry for him and wouldn’t steal anything. He is known as a slum lord. Jerry and I have one thing in common, we both went to Wake Forest. We sit next to each other at the basketball games and the football games. Our tickets are next to each other. I have known him when both his boys went to Wake Forest. And his father played basketball at Wake Forest. And when his boys were going to Wake Forest, we had a little period when our football team wasn’t winning. I asked Jerry to ask one of his boys what was wrong with the team, and Jerry said, “Well, they said they were in the process of rebuilding.” That was 15 years ago. Last week Jerry and I went to the Deacon Club here in Raleigh, and somebody asked the coach what was the problem with the football team, and they said, “We’re in the process of rebuilding.” They’ve been rebuilding for 15 years. I can’t think of things to say about Jerry other than he is a quintessential gentleman. He’s a great dresser, and he’s the kind of guy that you want in your foxhole. He and I have had, we fought political wars together, we’ve had dinner together, and we have become the best of friends. And Jerry I will miss you greatly, and I’m glad you’ll still be in town. And you jave made this place a better place for your service to the state of North Carolina. And we are honored that you served and we’re sorry that you’re leaving. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I thought it’d be appropriate since I’m a seatmate to Representative Dockham, that I would say something nice on his last day here in the General Assembly. It sort of puts me in a quandary because I’m really not in the habit of saying anything nice about anybody unless they’re dead. But anyway, you know, I thought it was quite an honor for me to be able to have Representative Dockham for a seatmate. Having suffered for so many years with Danny McConnis as a seatmate, and I thought, “Well this is a real step up.” And then I found out that he and Representative Daughtry drew straws to see who would sit next to me, and he lost. I’ve enjoyed sitting with Representative Dockham. You have been a fine seatmate. You’ve been a good mentor. I’ve observed you through the years. You know, Jerry Dockham is a rare political animal. Years and years ago the seat was filled with a fellow Charles Cromer, Representative Charles Cromer. And then he was tapped by Governor Martin to become his legal counsel, and he resigned. And Representative Dockham was appointed to that seat. This is 12½ terms. He served 20 years in this seat after being appointed, before somebody got up enough nerve to challenge him. He never, he didn’t have elections, he didn’t have primaries, he didn’t… And I believe four years ago he did finally pick up a primary and then maybe a general election in the last go round. But we just wish you the best of luck in your new role as a member of the Utilities Commission. I’m going to miss you because you’ve been my IT man. You’d bring the computer and you’d always find that bill that was on the computer when I couldn’t find it. So I’m going to miss you for that. Everybody talks about Representative Holloway being Wasp 101, and we have Representative Burr who is Wasp 102, but you were the original Wasp 100. You were setting the standards for dress long before these young sprouts ever came along. You always had the little bow tie, and the seersucker suits and the polished shoes. So I’m glad that they learned a little bit from you as far as the dress codes. I never learned. None of that ever rubbed off on me. I’m sorry that his wife, Louise, is not here today. But she was in the balcony yesterday, and we were sitting there talking. I don’t know what we were talking about, and then all of a sudden he got a text from his wife and he says, “You need to sit up and behave and keep your mouth shut. Yeah you need to behave.” But anyway, I would like to say sincerely from the bottom of my heart…

you are a first-class gentleman. It's been an honor to have served with you. This body is better because of your service here. The state of North Carolina is richer because you have been a member of the House. The people of Davidson County will have a great loss in trying to find someone to fill your shoes. I don't know that they can, but I know they'll try. But certainly, I'm glad to know that you're still serving the state of North Carolina on the Utilities Commission. And best of luck in everything that you endeavor in the future. [SPEAKER CHANGES] President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an inquiry of the Chair and then a moment of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Could you tell us if we're expected to be here past 6 tonight, and if so, would you write a note to my mother-in-law, with whom I'm supposed to have dinner tonight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair will not need to write that note. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And for a moment of Personal Privilege, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's a sad day here when we do have to bid farewell to Representative Dockham. I'm glad Representative Starnes has instructed the junior members to follow Representative Dockham's style in dress, but really the reason I'm sad is something even more important that we should seek to emulate Representative Dockham in. In the eight years that he and I have served together, we've been on the same side of some issues, and we've been on the opposite side of some issues. And I can say that at every single one of those occasions, he's conducted himself in a way that brings great credit on this institution, and it truly has been an honor to serve with him. I didn't agree with him on everything he did here, and I'm pretty sure on the Utilities Commission I'm not going to agree with him on everything he does there, but I know that our state is in good hands and the Utility Commission is getting someone who carries our state's best interests in his heart. And we'll miss you, Jerry, but glad you're still serving the state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on a resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First of all, Representative Dockham, I didn't mean that in the way it came out. I want to speak on a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And I want to just tell the body, just how great it has been to be with Representative Dockham over the years, because he came in the short session of 1990, and I came in January 1991, so we have a long history together, and I think an excellent friendship. We have just been friends over the years. We disagreed once or twice on issues, but our friendship has never wavered, and it's always been a pleasure to work with you, Jerry, and I will not forget you and I will think of you when you're over there, making better money than we are, at the Utilities Commission. God bless you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I just want to stand and briefly acknowledge Representative Dockham. Fine gentleman, I love your style in dress, great bow ties. One of the things I would say, it's been a real pleasure to work with you. Last year at this time, you might remember that I was in a wheelchair, broke my left ankle and Representative Dockham was always asking me about it. But he was also giving me some advice about how to move around with a cast, because he had had a previous fall and a problem with his ankle as well. It's been a real pleasure to work with you. I would ask that you would do one thing for me. We talked about the Brims and Bows Day and so if you will give us a good referral, I would certainly appreciate that, and we'd look for you to come back when we do Bows and Brims Day. But it's been a real pleasure to work with you, you've been not only a statesman, but you have been just a very kind and supportive colleague, and I really have appreciated that. Thank you very much and good luck to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, the Chair was thinking with the loss of Representative ?? and Representative McGee and now Representative Dockham, we may have to go to clip-on ties or clip-on bow ties. Representative Rayne Brown, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll make this very short, but very sincere. I'm going to miss you so much, Representative Dockham. And when I first came here he just made me so welcome, and he's always stood by me. And the bottom line for us has always been

what’s really in the best interest of Davidson County, and he’s always done that and I will miss him and appreciate him more than he will ever know. It’s very important for a Freshman to have someone really great in their delegation to look up to and I had that in spades. So thank you Jerry, for everything. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tolson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to share a story about Representative Dockham. My Freshman year here, I introduced a bill and it was a healthcare bill. The rules chair immediately sent that bill to insurance and Representative Dockham was the chair, and this just shows you how honest and straightforward and kind gentleman he is. I went to his office and I said, Representative Dockham, I’m a Freshman here and don’t know all the processes, but I have a feeling that my bill was sent to you for a certain reason, was it sent there to be killed? He said, Representative Tolson, I was told to move that bill very, very slowly. He did. It took another whole session to get that bill heard. But I really...I thanked him for his honesty, because, being a Freshman, you thought you understood, but a fine gentleman he is, that started a friendship that I really enjoyed knowing Representative Dockham and working with him over the 18 or 17 years that I’ve been here. We’re going to miss you, and I wish you well in your new endeavor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would never compete with some of my colleagues and the great remarks they’ve made today to make a smile, but I just wanted to speak briefly about the personal sacrifice that all of us make every day to serve here, and it is a challenge for each of us. I can remember that there’s been many times when I’ve wondered how do you keep it all in balance. How do you do it all. Jerry was kind enough to talk to me one day and he said, you know, I can remember when my kids were younger and we would be here in session and that I would drive home to coach their teams at night and then drive back and how tiring that was, but he kept his commitment to the people back home and he kept his commitment to his family. Family’s kind of really what this is about. Many of you in this room remember former Representative Arlie Cook. Great guy, good friend of mine. I was blessed. He’d probably say he was not, but I was blessed to have him as my seatmate for about six years and Arlie’s a great guy, he doesn’t have any family left. But Jerry and his wife have continually reached out to him and would always invite Arlie over on special days. For instance, they would invite him for Thanksgiving lunch, which Jerry would tell you means that Arlie would get there about 8:30 AM so that he could be on time and be prepared. I have learned so much about the decorum and the dignity with which you’re supposed to carry yourself. Representative Tolson spoke earlier about sometimes we all have to do things here that we may not like, and there’s sometimes that we have to oppose each other on issues and Jerry’s done a very good job of standing on his principles and being willing to disagree, but he’s always done so in a way that he was never disagreeable. I think that is an admirable skill. It’s one that I hope I can learn to be more like you. You’re a tremendous asset to this house and to this state, and I just wanted to say thank you as well. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, when I got here...

i was fortunate to know to be put on the punishment which was a ?? block then of course representative ?? reasons are above the obvious for everyone and now, so but you also have representative ?? down there and representative ?? and you almost gonna go through ?? like a cave ?? his office in there ?? but so i went visiting him from time to time and the great thing about ?? was is that he had been in the chamber for a while ?? communities and now he in the ?? but he kept the same attitude, and he kept every positive attitude he was extremely helpful to me i know that first secession i would woke up over there ?? shoulder all the time we were ?? lots of insurance bills ?? and i was forever taping his moment ?? should i vote for this and he would always tell me what i needed to do and was always ?? and i appreciated that but the thing that i appreciated the most was his attitude in all that he kept the right attitude he kept the right approach he knew why he was down here that he was here for the people of his district ?? the best interest of the citizen of Carolina and so its i think its wonderful that he comes to this day where ?? and up in one of the offices ?? and sitting up in the front row and headed to the one of the great members of the ?? continuing the ?? the citizens with that with not only his knowledge and commitment but with that wonderful attitude that ?? and so i certainly ?? and thank him so deeply for his help to me and so many others in this chamber [speaker change] representative ?? please state your purpose [speaker change] for a brief movement of ?? [speaker change] ?? there is no privilege [speaker change] ?? ?? i want to thank the members for the kind words, mister speaker i want to thank you for your leadership i want thank you for the nice office and i had such fast passion i want to thank you for allowing me to be the chairmen of ?? community we come down here i think ?? ?? entrust business ?? i want to thank you for ?? that community ?? this is a kind of better sweet day for me ?? the first time i have ever been in there found out what you told ?? but its nothing like this i can tell you that well i do look forward for serving ?? i also want to thank you all for allowing me to serve with you, it is been an honor i learnt so much from each one of you and i was thinking about this early this morning as i was getting ready to come over here, you know a man is truly lucky, when you go anywhere in the state and look around this chamber and i can go anywhere in the state and i have a friend that i could call on and ?? have a friend ?? to count on me ?? ?? coming to that area well i would just leave you ?? two request first of all always honor this chamber we come down here we fight for our principles never give up your principles but always honor this chamber, always honor the house of representatives and what it stands for this is the peoples house this is where ?? matter and this is where the people are heard and secondly i would ask you this always ?? to each other ?? away from home away from our family and we deserve to ?? to each other we need a friend every one's in a while whether you agree or disagree with someone it doesn't cost anything to become to their ?? so i leave you with best wishes thank you for all the ?? thank you for allowing me to serve with you i want to before i forget thank my family for the sacrifice that they have made for allowing me to be down here, ?? a wonderful wife ?? ?? so many times and i know she is listening ?? on the computer but thank you again and may god bless each one of you and may god bless this great state of north Carolina that

Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker, and then before I get into what I'm gonna say, I'm gonna tell Representative Dockham, you are a model for how a gentleman should act. Thank you. As you guys know, as, as, as Jerry gets on, gets ready to take his next phase, we got a member of our seatmate will be back next week. Representative Collins likes to keep up with everything that's going on, so I'd invite all of you, all of your extra papers you need him to read, please come and put on his desk so he can read them when he gets back please. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Farmer-Butterfield, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to speak or, I'd like to ask that comments about Senator, Representative Dockham be spread across the journal. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So ordered. Representative Luebke, I feel like we should vote on a resolution at this point. Representative Dockham, congratulations on all the work you've done and all the, the, the, the preponderance of very well wishes for you and all the things that you've done in this body. Ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna be taking a recess shortly. We will do notices and announcements, in fact, could I have the chairs, or not the chairs, the pages, please come to the front of the chamber. And the pages and the ?? to step down. While they're coming to the front of the chamber, we are gonna do a, a couple of notices, and then we'll open it up to other notices and announcements after we thank the pages. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker, members, the committee of rules, calendar, and operations on the House will meet immediately after recess in room 1228. I would ask all members to please get there promptly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Republicans will have a caucus immediately after the rules committee meeting in 1228 downstairs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, the chair anticipates that to be about ten or twenty minutes after we recess. Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The finance committee will meet in room 544 forty minutes after we go on recess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pages, we're, we're gonna be going into recess. I know your quitting time on Thursday is three o'clock, so we'll probably be, not back in the chamber before you'll be released for the day. Like I said earlier this week, you're the last crop of pages for the session. I, I hope that this week you were able to learn a little bit about what we were doing and have a little bit of fun along the way, and I hope that you'll carry your experiences back to your family members and friends and encourage them to come and visit with us as well. Members, let's show our appreciation. Pages, thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before we go into recess, are there any other notices and announcements? Representative Hollo, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opie Taylor is fifty nine. Dennis the Menace is sixty two. Theodore “The Beaver” Cleaver is sixty three. Howdy Doody is sixty six. What do they all have in common. All of them have become older. Sooner or later my seatmate will get older. But for now, please join me in wishing Representative Justin Burr a happy twenty eighth birthday tomorrow.

[Speaker changes.]...Pages, you can see...couple of years and you could be down here as well. The Pages, you're now released to go back to your stations. Representative Earle, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker changes.] The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. The House will come to order. [Speaker changes.] I would just like to take this opportunity to congratulate and to let everybody know that our soon-to-be past Mayor of Charlotte has been confirmed as the new US Secretary of Transportation. We are very proud. Thank you. (Applause.) [Speaker changes.] Again, ladies and gentlemen, we will be adjourning for an hour and let's just assume ...give us a little.. a five minute breather than we will reconvene at 3:15 so we'll go a little bit longer. 3:15. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker, move that the House do now go into recess subject to receipt of messages from the Senate. Committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, modifications and publications of calendar...to reconvene at three o'clock fifteen. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative ????? That the House go into recess subject to receipt of messages from the Senate.Receipt of committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, modifications to the calendar...all in favor say aye. (Ayes.) All opposed say no. The ayes have it. We stand in recess until 3:15. (Gavel.) [Speaker changes.] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer, recognized to send forth committee report. [Speaker changes.] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer, for the Finance Committee, Senate Bill 280 CDL requirements military experience, favorable House Committe Substitute, unfavorable as to Senate Committee Substitute. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 280. [Speaker changes.] House Committee Substitutes calendar; Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable calendar. [Speaker changes.] House Bill 14, revokes ??? technical clarifying administrative changes, favorable is Committee Substitute, unfavorable is to the original bill. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute, calendar; original bill, unfavorable calendar. Representative Brawley...William Brawley is recognized to send forth committee report. [Speaker changes.] Representative William Brawley for the regulatory-formed subcommitte on local government, Senate Bill 426 changed deadline auditing???? response, reassigned to regulatory reform committee. [Speaker changes.] Noted. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt recognized to send forth committee report. Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt for Regulatory Reform Committee, Senate Bill 174, disapproved industrial commission rules; favorable as House Committe Substitute, unfavorable as Senate Committee Substitute. [Speaker changes.] House Committee Substitute calendar; Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable calendar. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 159 requires certain general reappraisals favorable and serially referred to Finance. [Speaker changes.] Bills referred to Committee on Finance. Representatives Stone and Warren are recognized to send forth Committe Report. Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Representative Stone and Warren for the Government Committee, Senate Bill 659, mapped 21 conforming revisions, favorable and serially referred to Appropriations. [Speaker changes.] Bill's referred to Appropriations. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 547, favorable and serially referred to Finance. [Speaker changes.] Bill's referred to Finance. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 177, ???>????? satellite annexation is favorable. [Speaker changes.] Calendar? [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 297, Winston-Salem local development, favorable as House Committee Substitute; unfavorable as to the original bill. [Speaker changes.] House Committee Substitute re-referred to Committee on Rules, Senate Committee Substitute, the original bill unfavorable calendar. [Speaker changes.] House Bill 569, Foxfire Satellite annexations favorable and serially referred to Finance. [Speaker changes.] Bill's referred to Finance. [Speaker changes.] House Bill 568, Ashville De-Annexation, favorable as Committe Substitute, unfavorable as to the original bill. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute calendar, original bill unfavorable calendar. [Speaker changes.] Court Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moore for Rules Calendar Operations to the House, Senate Bill 321 contain counties inmate medical costs, favorable as House Committee Substitute Number Two, unfavorable as House Committee Number One. [Speaker changes.]House Committee Substitute Number Two, calendar; House Committe Number... [Speaker changes.]

one unfavorable calendar. ?? The remainder of the recording (PDHUIT) is inaudible background chatter.

attention please ,may I have attention please

The House will come to order. Representative Howard, Lewis and Setzer are recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer finance committee Senate Bill 315 municipal services in favorable committee substitute number 3. Favorable is the House Committee substitute number 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute calendar. Reasonable Bill in favor. Members the supplemental calendar process of being prepared but we did have 2 bills still left on our calendar from earlier. Without further ado, Senate Bill 709, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute present the Bill 709 ? to direct the department of transportation to conduct a study increasing the speed limit on up to four control access highways to say five miles per hour. Develop a pilot program proposal and report to joint legislative transportation on site committee by January 31, 2014. ? of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the Gentleman from Eckleburg Representative Riley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker. This Bill had a very vigorous debate, was displaced and sent back to the House Committee on transportation. It is turned into a study. It requires the DOT to study the idea of running a test on four roads currently marked as 70 miles per hour with a low incidence of accidents. To evaluate the possibility of doing a 75 miles per hour speed limit from the data gained from the study and from the test but it raises no limits and it does no tests. It's simply a study and would be happy to answer any questions. Hopefully, there would be none. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does Lady of Eckleburg, Representative Carney rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady has the floor to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker and Ladies and Gentlemen of the House I've been quite vocal about this and committee and would have it on the floor if we debated it then. I have had numerous emails about this issue but I’m going to share some issues that I have had since the study was voted out of transportation committee and it's very serious. We’ve had some joking about it...laughter, but this is a serious issue. I'm not sure how you do a pilot on an interstate of whether somebody can see how many people drive that fast...70 or 80, or on four roads but I will say this. We have not acknowledged what the driver limitations are. I've had calls for a study by DOT. If we're going to look at this seriously, and we want to look at the safety of the people of this state, then let's do it right and let's look at it and these are the things that were pointed out to me. We haven't taken in consideration the driver limitations on our freeways...on our aging freeways. We have not taken in consideration the highway workers and emergency responders on our highways. We have many of our 70 mile per hour routes, and this is an engineer, that have wet crash problems. Many 70 mile per hour routes are posted at their maximum engineered designed speeds. We have unofficial crossovers, bridges, overpasses that need to be closed. It would be beneficial and I will point this out, to hear from the highway patrol, the trucking industry...and here's one we haven't even thought of, the judicial branch that routinely reduces speeding citations via plea down and ? for judgments. So we haven't talked about what is the cost to design highways to maintain an 85 miles per hour speed. DOT should, again, be given at least a year and we should fund them to do a comprehensive study of moving in that direction for our roads in the state. It should include full freeways not partial or limited ones...

Representative: …should include safety advocates and not just us political people. We need to address speeding citation adjudication practices, unofficial crossovers, medium and ride shoulder widths, ramp design lengths and trucking impasses. I don’t know how many of you even thought about that when we were talking about moving up the 75 miles per hour. So I appreciate the speaker, or whomever, moving this back to the transportation committee so we did not just blow out of here, no pun intended, to pass 75 mph. I really think this is a serious issue. I think that a lot of people would rather see us, rather than saying that a committee here within the legislature will take a look at four lanes, let’s look at this seriously. I am going to have to vote against this today as it is standing, and would urge you to do the same. Let’s come back and put together a comprehensive study for our department. We are putting the liability on somebody when they say, within the department, this road is good, if we don’t look at all of these issues that have been pointed out to me in numerous emails from those who design these roads and build them. So I would ask that you do not support this bill. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Brunswick, Representative Ahler , rise? Representative: To see if Represenative will yield for a question. Speaker: Does the lady from McClemborgh yield? Representative: I will try and… Speaker: She yields, but prior to stating the question, a motion from the gentleman in the back on rule 12H is suspended. The gentleman may now state his question. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mrs. Carney, and I guess to some degree I am addressing the body as I am asking the question, you realize that this is a proposal for a project – they will come back with a proposal this is not a study and a proposal to do a follow up project. They will have to come back to the legislature to have it authorized. Representative: I understand that but I just wished that we had a more comprehensive request of the department to come back rather than just have a pilot on poor roads. Representative: Can I speak on… Speaker: The gentleman from Brunswick, Representative Ahler, is recognized to debate the bill. Representative: It’s my intention and hopefully the intention of the oversight committee, which is comprised of 22 members: half house and half senate, I hope it is the intention to consider all of these factors that you have mentioned, as well as any other factors DOT engineers and attorneys and anybody else involved – I certainly hope they will consider all of those factors. We would certainly want them to. Thank you. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Dukeland, Representative Dixon , rise? Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Brunswick, Representative Ahler , rise? Representative: Mr. Speaker, members of the house, I am opposed to this. I am opposed to doing any kind of study on increasing the speed limit when there are so many other things relative to the cost of construction, the different things we will need. I have been now hearing, for an enormous amount of time, how short we are of funds to do what we already need to do, on studying an increase on the speed limit, when we could we use our manpower, our resources, in a much more prioritized way than doing this at this time? So I will be voting no. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glacier , rise? Representative: To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. Speaker: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Normally I would think this was a compromise and would certainly vote for the study. Although, Mrs. Dixon makes a good, valid point, and I would have been voting for this, but for the line at the end that says – here is what the result of the study has to be. You know we were supposed to have a study. We were a divided house and the study says, again, maybe it should have been more extensive as Representative Carney says, look at this and I think in the second part it says look to determine if the speed limit of 75 is reasonable and safe for the conditions found to exist. Well, assume that they say it is not, that would be a conclusion they may reach, except we tell them they cannot reach it in lines 35 and 36 by saying they shall identify a proposal for a pilot program

For seventy-five hours be limited for segments. You can't say that they have an option to say no because they're forced to say yes. So I think if you took out lines thirty-five and thirty-six, I'd certainly vote to at least study it even though I share some of Representative Dixon's concerns, but I'm not going to vote for a sham study that says no matter what you've got to come up with four pilots and send it to us. And for that reason I'll be voting no. [speaker changes] For what purpose does the lady from New Hanover, I believe the Representative Hamilton and her assistant rise? [speaker changes] To impress my daughter by demonstrating my ability to speak on the floor of the house. [speaker changes] The lady is recognized to give it her best shot. [speaker changes] Thank you sir. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have mixed feelings about accelerating the speed limits in the state of North Carolina, although my driving record may demonstrate otherwise. But, I do believe in studies in particular when it comes to changing times and changing abilities, actually changing engineering and the speeds that the roads now can handle and the safety initiatives that have been taken in most of the modern day cars today. For that reason I'll be supporting the bill although it will be with reluctance since will be going ahead and implementing those speeds in other locations. Thank you. [speaker change] For what purpose does the gentleman from Chowan, Representative Steinburg rise? [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise... [speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [speaker changes] Thank you sir. I'm speaking in opposition to the bill. My cowboy days have long since past, although my driving record would not indicate as much, but I have a real fear of...I know my reaction time and I'm on the road a lot I'm a guy that used to drive 35-40 thousand miles a year and my reaction time has really gotten very poor. If I'm distracted just for a second and I've got on that cruise control and I'm heading down the road at 70 miles an hour which is the current speed limit which means I probably set my cruise control at 72 or 73 miles an hour, and if I'm just distracted for a moment I find myself running off on the side and I'm not alone. There's a lot of us folks out there who think we're pretty gosh darn good drivers, but this scares me and there's a lot of people that even when we're testing this...there's a lot of folks who think that lives will be put in jeopardy as a result. I don't think North Carolina roads yet are built for more than 70 miles an hour. I just want to stand and say that I am in opposition even to this study. Thank you. [speaker changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Jeter, rise? [speaker changes] To briefly debate the bill so I can go home tonight. [speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to briefly debate the bill. [speaker changes] I own a trucking company and I also know of a rule because I got caught by it. There is a rule in North Carolina that if you are caught going speeding in excess of 75 miles an hour you lose your drivers license for six months on your first offense. One mile per hour, if the speed limit was 75 and you go 76 you lose your drivers license for six months. That's a law that exists in our books because some of us got caught by it. Everyone talks about us passing a bill that's going to allow the speed limit to go 75 and then we're all going 84. We don't pass laws that say the legal age for being drunk is .08 because we know that everyone's going to be .16. You have to pass a law with the intent of people following the law. There's another law that is extremely penal when it comes to the standpoint of if you go over 75 miles an hour. The idea that this is somehow dangerous or unsafe, I just don't buy that argument. And going to Representative Glazier's argument which I think why he didn't ring the bell today. There's still time. He makes the point that it shall report and he's correct it shall report that to the joint legislative transportation oversight committee. That committee has to accept it. If that committee says you know what we're not doing it, it doesn't happen. That report in and of itself cannot mandate this study. Studying this and doing it the way we're doing it makes common sense. I'm one of the members of the transportation oversight committee...

eight-day-to-not live in copy of the area of support this concept and I'll bust as dumb as the resident and rats ??to date as the life that have wanted a data that he said she will be tested or someone time at today's busy route Wednesday on Saturday, eight , has been vacant since 1978, editor of chanted, as the door AM when a router and people say that was it paid by a call that they cannot and will cite only in the right at 75 miles an hour should have is a phenomenon is as high as the interstate commerce savings and hander Chinese is not a salient, and(SPEAKER CHANGES) Ben Hines-item is when of a series of free time is writing some ideas for his creator of the white stripes and experience at one is lied to build time is spent the entire air sites and or that of his agent said of the season as ??might be throughout December 7, and to the fall arrives , as sensitive source of times to as the sun, was a descendant matters and seeded Jennifer Ruffin gets a recipe of the west region of power, eight years of Utah jazz one halftime here on the other two 8¢; June the generator interests may or sell it and 1/2 on Saturdays at event with a hole so out of cities and activity, that to the jail since all at once again that the cop and shawls and she wants to enter the other site committee recommendation would be not only that it was the report that generate any time-to-be a short session at the styled operation of that city of St. Louis sell ??18787 one eight and 85 visit that included into in to the opportunities of loss in its ??, seven-day standoff, who has resigned as president of the great deals ideology has recognized we have in mind the times of the high desert in the role are we say, don't share of the code are also you a date of the whole idea of us it's use rest of the Latino and low sixties in the day and evening, and this for our city tiled I-a-10 season, but was offensive action and other houses in-time issues of offenses and are also at stake the opening his wife and daughter heels of the time being, am I the only signs than that of the DNA of saint mary's, and may change to the settlement in a sense of the swells as he did was Chinese seven rose kennedy's how this was an economy-of-salt lake city and grew at a time as the son of that residence address just 40 initiator of times in opposition to the steel me the name of opportunity that we did your head when the sub-par is a syntax of the day after it was time to the CBO and go out of the active, when the downtime raising the speed limit is anybody has any other top of his pants and a NAZI time- related parties and that the Anaheim angels and Saul Menem ??.....

... would ask members to please avoid the line of sight and give the speaker the respect he deserves. The gentleman has the floor to continue debating the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It could, possibly, and I would argue, would put more of a burden on our law enforcement. It would risk lives unnecessarily, possibly increase insurance rates. So, to me, when we're passing a bill, we're supposed to be improving something that was not... that would... to make it better than it previously was. And on this particular case I can only see bad. So, I would respectfully request that you vote against the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I understand that the roads may be engineered better where they can withstand these kind of speeds and that sort of thing, might be engineered for that, but the road is not going to have any hands on the steering wheel. And that... I think what's important here is the average driver. And the average driver, I guess if you go and look at that, you got to look at average age, and the average age is getting a little higher around here in case you hadn't... well, Josh notwithstanding... it is getting a little higher in this state. I'm still a fairly good driver as long as Tammy's with me to make sure I see everything that I need not to hit, and that sort of thing. But I am getting older. My eye's not as good as it used to be. And I have to admit I used to exceed the speed limit a great deal when I was going to go courting her when she lived 70 miles away and it took an hour and a half to get there at the speed limit and I made it in 55 minutes. But I can't be keeping on doing that. And I just feel like that Representative Dixon was correct, that we don't need to be committing resources to this study when we're having a hard enough time figuring out how we're going to pay for the roads and bridges to start with. I feel like that it's just an unnecessary idea to raise the speed limit. I don't see what good it would do except maybe to collect a little more gasoline taxes, and I just think it's a waste of money and a waste of effort to do a study on it, and so I'm... I hate to disappoint some of the folks that really would thought that I'd have gone the other way on this, but I just can't vote for this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the light of Representative Dockham's comments earlier about the integrity of this body regarding this debate, he might have should have left during the recess. I'd just like to add a little bit of insight on this. Again, we are looking at a study and we are looking at a proposal. It seems like we actually have the joint legislative oversight committee going on right here making these decisions. And I'm just asking you to support this bill in the light of what this bill is. Not in the light of what the bill could be. Not in the light of what the joint legislative oversight committee may do. We have plenty of opportunity to look at this. This bill was just looking at studying the impacts of this. In regard to Representative Dobson's comments that that... of all the cons that this bill may do, not... versus the pros, I'd like for us to focus in on the original intent of this bill as well as... as what this legislation does, is that it's about interstates. It's about... You have your lane widths are different on interstates than a secondary or primary road. Your shoulder widths are different. The ability for you to move faster is different. So the idea of safety can increase, depending on what the study does, if everyone is moving more like at the same speed. When you have one driver that's driving like Representative Pittman did in his courting days, versus another driver who's driving like a 18-year-old, it's a safety issue. I would ask you to support this bill. Let's keep our minds focused on what this legislation is doing. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan, Representative Warren, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'd like to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Colleagues, it's... it amazes me that... what bills will generate a lot of numbers on the queue, and I really wouldn't want to prolong this, but I rise to speak against the bill simply because I fear it may pass. Several of the colleagues have made remarks that I agree with. That's one of things about waiting so long to speak, is a lot of what you want to say has already been said. But I do agree with Representative Dixon, I don't...

?? the reason to invest time or money in something studying particularly as Representative Glazier says the outcome is already dictated. I keep asking myself what is the point. I thing that is what Representative Dobson was asking. What is the point of going 5 miles an hour faster? What is the benefit of this bill and why are we wasting time with it? When I was doing research on a bill that I have to and hope to bring to the floor someday I found out that there was over 160,000 citations last year for drivers who were driving without licenses and without insurance, 160,000, it was in excess of 160,000. We have tens of thousands of people driving on the roads right now illegally without any certification that they know how to drive and now we want to increase the speed limit and give them the latitude to go five miles an hour faster. I think that this is a questionable motive. In fact I don't even know what the motive for increasing the speed limit is. But I rise again to speak against this bill because I fear that it may have a chance of passing. I think it's a waste of resources and I just think it is a waste of a lot of time here on the floor today and yesterday. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the member from Rockingham, Representative Jones rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker. I may be hours late. People want to go home and I'll try to be brief as well. I do want to report to the body of my own study that I have just done and I would just include in that by letting the folks know that the closest road to here with a speed limit above 70 miles per hour is approximately 1000 miles away. I believe that I'm correct in saying that AAA, the American Automobile Association opposes raising the speed limit primarily for safety reasons. I just read that the American Trucking Association has actually asked the federal government if they would lower the national speed limit to 65 miles per hour and one of the primary reasons besides safety is that they talk about the significant level of fuel consumption that would be lowered. I would also remind the body that prior to 1995 there was a national speed limit of 55 miles per hour and our current speed limit of 70 miles per hour is a 27 percent increase. That was before the days of cell phones and other such distractions and I just don't think that driving is improved by 27 percent since then. and so for all these reasons and the reasons that have already been mentioned I'll have to vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenberg, Representative Brawley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker. To speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak a second time on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker. This has been a very interesting exercise as chairman of Transportation Committee along with Representative Iler. It's been up to us to run a Senate bill, present it to the body where there was considerable debate. It came back to the committee. Representative Iler had to run it the second time and it was my turn to bring it to the floor. I'm reminded of something Jim Martin said one time. Everything's been said but not everybody said it. I think we might have even gotten to that point on this one. I would like to have some closure on this. The supplemental calendar is ready to be addressed so we can move on. I would like to move to previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Brawley will yield for one quick question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley and chairman of the committee you sat here and you heard the weeping and gnashing of teeth over this bill. Are there any bills in your committee or have there been this year or last year that would lower the speed limit down to 50 or 40 or I don't know where. Some of the members would be satisfied having it, having it lowered. Are you aware of any such bills? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Blust I was not chairman last year. I'm aware of no bills to lower the speed limit and if I get the call the previous question we can vote this down and put this issue to rest and I don't have to talk about it any more. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Mecklenburg is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker I move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Mecklenburg consistent with rule 19 has moved the previous question which is not debatable. The question before the house is the previous question. Those in favor of the previous question will vote aye. Those opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

the court will see record at seventy three, having voted in the affirmative, then thirty, doing the negative previous question is adopted in which brings us to a vote on the bill added in the three-minute rebuttal does the as the minority party wish talk three minutes in rebuttal on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you the Mr. speaker and not go to the role. he said it everything message is everybody and send it and know that no completely the person becomes everybody have asserted and have a few words. photo does [SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentleman from Caldwell wish to offer a closing statement on behalf of the majority of all trust your judgement on the human Brooklyn well say it clashed in the Florida House is the passage of Senate Bill seven nine on second reading so many of Scheibe, the passage of the bill will, but it are those opposed over to the court was divided. the court will lock the machine in records about forty four, having voted in the affirmative and sixty war in the negative bill fails will be placed only unfavourable down Senate Bill seven seventeen, the court will read House committee sent to present real seven seventeen. an act authorized additional giggles discretion in the sensibilities and suspensions on-site inspection license( I used a wall violation and declare by the motor vehicle dealers I like the ball drops in North Carolina, says [SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentleman is represented by Darius is the gentleman is recognized due to billing given another chance, a list by missing a thought about the person the right to decide on this video also now is a is a bill to give the DMV Salma T he is far shutting down and specialization for six months or violation under existing law, there is a employee say I have a special studies specialization inspection stations and marble. he did something at home not doing the right thing. as far as his backing band. my business is for the questions will be shut down for six months was automatically and directly felt fine. this is not a fine still pay fine but usually in reason G disorders. how are extremely violation is our existing owner didn't know what our bed, my taking corrective action immediately. all things that will ultimately then they can waive the are naked. they are six monoclonal suspension of their license in respect. so Bush doesn't put them out of business– the first for the veil of the site or the veil on his revisions from mobile phone or mail, which will change the franchise law within the motor vehicle dealers and manufacturers licensing law known as a franchise law and the provisions were in a different veil which you are not of this labile involve a very nice car if you do, and drove around here,but is the provision is included in Senate Bill seven seventeen this veil are only those surveyed him at all energy cycle revision from the dust of the other remaining controversy among his goals are not in Centerville sounds in a time to gather his male section seven eight nine ten. although some sections was in the second sentence of section thirty three forty eight deal with allowing our dealers have some leeway in dealing with their manufacturers now Melanesian, a small businessman 's freedom in the domain of the warranties that the sound quality of some of the Plaxomissiles, mom, Paul and advertise their lasting leadership that manufacture sometimes found in manufactures, you will astound about exactly their parts. that also depends on your franchise agreement. this is a protection for some of some of those eyes are section eight claims of the

...and when they do warranty work for the manufacturer, say I'm, you know, Harry Brown, I have a dealership and I sell Chryslers or whatever, and Chrysler, I have to do the warranty work and I get paid by the manufacturer for that. It determines who that's calculated in Section 8 and Section 10. And the fact that they do get compensated fairly and what it's based on, the prevailing retail rates. Protection of dealerships' customer data, Section 9, that just refers to their customer, like my customers' data, say I'm the dealer, my customers' data is secure from the manufacturer forcibly making me turn over certain pieces of his customer data to them. So it's a protection for them as far as their customers' data. But this is the non-controversial parts of the bill you've probably heard about. Or got a lot of mail about. And not the controversial parts. So I recommend the bill to you. I'll be glad to answer any questions I possibly can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 717 on it's second reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and eight having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative. Senate Bill 717 passes on its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, so many as favor the passage of Senate Bill 717 on its third reading will say aye, those opposed will say no. The ayes have it and Senate Bill 717 passes on its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Members, we're now moving to our supplemental calendar. Before we do that, we need to recognize two honorary pages. Allie Reidel and Regan Reidel, who are seated in the back. If you all would please stand and let us welcome you. [Applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, if without objection or is there objection to grouping the first two items? Local bill, second reading role call? House Bill 568, Senate Bill 177. Representative Fisher? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to request that House Bill 568 be pulled, be separate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Be separate? OK. House Bill 568, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Bill 568, a bill to be entitled An Act to De-Annex Certain Described Territory from the City of Asheville. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Bill 568 would de-annex five tracts from the corporate limits of the City of Asheville for a total of about 675 acres. This property is part of the Asheville Regional Airport. The city provides almost no services to the airport. It does provide water, but it also provides water to unincorporated parts of the county, as well as Henderson County. It will provide fire service or police protection, but the airport itself has its own fire department and its own police force. It doesn't provide street maintenance, it doesn't provide lighting, it doesn't provide zoning, doesn't provide solid waste services. All of those are provided by the airport itself. What Asheville does do is collect personal property taxes on the owners of airplanes, the owners of rental cars, leasehold interests, and it collects sales taxes on that property. So what this bill does is, since no great amount of services are being provided by the City of Asheville to this portion of, well what it constitutes Asheville Regional Airport, this bill will de-annex the airport from the city. And I ask for your support for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House, I arise to appose this bill, and I'll tell you why. There's really no reason for the bill, and there's several reasons not to have the bill. The airport was established in the late 1950's by the City of Asheville, acting alone, no other local governments participated in the purchase of the property, or the building of the facility. It has been part of the City of Asehville corporate limits since 1979, by session law passed here in 1979. It has served the city well, and the city zoning authority, as you know, was already limited in a law passed last year. So this is not about overly restrictive zoning regulations. If the airport is no longer in the City of Asheville, the city police and fire service will no longer be available on the same basis as it has been in the past. For example, the City of Asheville fire and police are there on hand for emergencies, for hazardous duty, for any disasters that might befall the Asheville airport. There was a plane crash back several years ago, where not only Asheville police and fire were on hand, but also local city businesses were on hand as well. You all have, I'm sorry to say, witnessed a string of bills that do the same sorts of things to the City of Asheville that this bill does. But let me just say that this particular taking will result in a loss of revenue from property taxes collected on the facilities of the airport, of about $193,000 annually. And that seems like a very small amount in the overall picture to be pushing a bill forward to take away $193,000 from the City of Ashville, but let me tell you, in a budget that's the size of Asheville this is a big deal. Especially when that city was the city that acquired the land and built the airport. So I ask you, I mean I hope you don't see any more bills like this in this session. It's been a difficult session for Asheville, as you might imagine, and for the person who is trying to speak on their behalf, but I would ask you to think about this, and think about, really, how necessary is this. Especially in light of the fact that the reason that Representative McGrady is running this bill, is to make sure that property that is at the Ag. Center is turned over to the county, and so that process is already underway. Correspondence is going back and forth between the city and the FAA, and that process is happening. This is just, sort of to put an exclamation point on the city must do this, or else. And I don't know how you all feel about it, but often I think the carrot and stick approach is not quite the way to go about getting people to cooperate. And so I would ask you please to vote no on this bill. Thank you. Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. To speak on the bill a 2nd time. The gentleman's recognized to debate the bill a 2nd time. Since the lady from Buncombe raised the issue of why we're running the bill, and what's the reason for the bill, I want to address that, in no great length. As many members remember, we passes the Asheville Regional Airport bill in the last session. After we passed it, almost immediately, the City of Asheville refused

To cooperate, they appointed a public official to the board which was expressly not permitted under the law that we passed and then as many of you know when you’re transferring property related to airports and since most of the money comes from the FAA, you gotta get the FAA to do that while the city refuse to cooperate. They wouldn’t help transfer any of the property pursuant to the law that we passed. And so, unfortunately this bill is a bill that is in the nature of a stick. It’s surprising once we filed the bill, the city of Ashville has now begun to cooperate and is actually working with the airport to move the property that appropriately has to go to the department of agriculture, the egg center over to the state. And, as the lady from Buncombe knows, I have made a commitment both to the city council of the city of Ashville and the lady from Buncombe that if the city continues to cooperate with the transfer of the land. My expectations is that I won’t move this bill in the Senate but to keep it eligible, I need to get it over to the senate. And, since the bill has been introduced, we’ve had a lot of cooperation and I hope we continue to have the cooperation and I hope we don’t have to pass the bill but we do need to pass this bill today to get it over to the senate and I ask your support for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the passage of house bill 568 on its second roll call 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 vote in the affirmative, 41 in the negative; the house committee substitute to house bill 568 has passed its second reading and remains on the calendar. Senate bill 177, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 177 a bill to be entitled an act to remove certain restrictions on satellite annexations for the towns of Hookerton and Maysville. The general assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative George Graham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and colleagues, Senate Bill 177 is a local bill supported by both the towns of Hookerton and Maysville. Each jurisdiction has passed resolutions to support or remove the restrictions on the satellite annexations. In the case of the town of Hookerton, the local leaders want to annex a part in a water tower and in the case of the town of Maysville, the local leaders desire to annex a development complex. This bill does not include any residential annexation and there is no known opposition. The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative John Bell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On behalf of the delegation, I ask for you to support this bill and thank you for your patience. Go green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of senate bill 177 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. 107 having vote in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, senate bill 177 has passed its second reading and remains on the calendar. Representative Glazier, does the gentleman wish to record as having voted Aye? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman be recorded as voting Aye. Senate Bill 103. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for Senate Bill 103 a bill to be entitled an act to amend the authority counties and cities have to use special assessments to address critical infrastructure needs. The general assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Speaker. This is actually a very very simple bill. It addresses two issues in the special assessment for critical infrastructure needs that have arisen as local governments have considered issues and the only thing that this bill does is just abstain the provision from July 1, 13 to July 1, 15. I would ask for 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 103.

Second reading. All in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will have the machine record the vote. 108 having voted in the affirmative 1 in the negative the Senate Committee Substitute to Senate ate Bill 103 has passed its second reading without objection. Chair stands corrected. Roll call vote will remain on the calendar. Senate Bill 315 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute #3 for Senate Bill 315 Bill ?? an act to provide ?? proper Substituted volunteer annexation petition is defeated by a vote of the municipal government body the municipality must provide some municipal service from payment over defined costs to ?? annex ?? city term that has petitioned for annexation amended the chart of the city of Durham allowing the city to delay the effect dated a volunteer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Representative will yield. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gent is recognized to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house. This Bill is the Bill that was heard in finance just a minute ago, and so I'm going to try to be respectful of the time given that it is 5:00 on Thursday afternoon. But I want to tell folks a little about why this Bill has been filed and what it's all about. Members, this Bill very simply is about property rights. The in, over in Durham county there is a development that is known as 751 South Project, being promoted by some folks there, some developers, some of the family members from the founded ?? industries that many of you may know that has the LED lights, came up with this development. What it is it is a mixed use development. It consists of a tract of land roughly 171 acres located essentially south of where, if you know where South Point Mall is , on that way down that road as you go towards ?? County. This, the reason I guess the question is why is a Bill like this before the legislature. And this course is Senator McKissick's Bill and Senator Woodard, although Senator McKissick is the one primarily pushing this Bill at this point on the Senate part. What this, the reason I got involved in this, folks, is that these developers last year, these landowners came to us out of concern of a Bill that had been filed that was being considered that would have completely shut them out and denied them access to water. When I talked to them and talked to a number of folks involved in it I was shocked to see that kind of thing happening, where a city would deny running water to a land owner in order to frustrate that land owner's right to develop their property. This property lies within the county and outside the city limits of Durham, and this landowner went through the process with the county, received the proper zoning to build this mixed use community, where they're going to have an amount of green space that is above average,. They voluntarily complied with the Jordan Lake rules because they're about a mile away from the lake. They have agreed to donate land for schools, for a share of subtation, they've got set aside for housing ?? for affordable housing. They've got a mixed use plan that is the dream of urban planners. They have followed all of the rules. They went through the county commission received it, they dealt with the city initially and then somewhere along the way politics got involved. And they were denied the access to water. They attempted to find the water from other sources, but there were issues where the city interfered with that. The city's basis is the city just didn't want the growth there, and the way the city enforced it was not through zoning, was not through anything like that, they complied with all the zoning, was to say you can't have water. And if you think about it, that's something that should shock the conscience and concern every single member of this house. Where any local government in this state would #1 and 2 could prevent a landowner from having access to water, to frustrate that ability. But folks, that's what happened. So when the land owners could not get relief at the local level, they did what they should do and they have filled to their state government and as a result you have this Bill that's before you. Now members, this Bill is the result of Senator McKissick and I worked on this jointly. This it has language in there that was agreed upon by the landowners, and also in consultation with the mayor, that they agreed upon.

The city council rejected the plan by a 4-3 vote at the last minute. But I assure you that the conversations have occurred with the folks from the city office and I believe the city planner's office has been involved, a number of folks. Let me tell you about the water access. What the developer has agreed to do is to pay for all the infrastructure costs, every bit of it, and pay double the city rates for the water. They've also agreed to make millions of dollars of road improvements as spelled out in here and they have agreed to be annexed. They didn't, they weren't seeking to be annexed but they're willing to be annexed and they're willing to allow the city up to ten years to do it, so that it would be fully, so that it would absolutely be a plus for the city. There's no way the city is going to lose money on this thing at all. Members, this bill is here, this bill is about property rights. Now some are going to get up and say this is meddling in a local issue. Members, these folks are residents of North Carolina and when we come here and we take our seats, we swore an oath to represent the people of North Carolina, not just one county, not just one town, but everybody here. This project, if approved, is going to give 3000 jobs to people in this state. There was a public hearing, there were many folks, there were those opposed and there were those who support it. And the ones who support this continually said we want this because it will bring jobs. We need jobs. Folks, that's what this bill is about. Support this bill and you're supporting private property rights and jobs. That's a message that we need to send from this state legislature and members, I would urge your support of this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, again, this bill goes against the will of the city council and we know we had basically this same bill a year or so ago, we know what the result of the vote was. But I don't rise to speak about that, but I rise to speak about the last statement made that this project will bring jobs. And what is important if you are going to get into position of being the city council person and feel that you have the knowledge to make a decision about this, you should have full information. And Representative Moore did talk about several things that could happen, or might happen, should the developer decide to do it. This legislation does not require him to do anything except for have the right to get the water and sewer at double the rate. It doesn't require him to develop the property even if he got it. It doesn't require him to anything else. I think the big issue that gets thrown around sometimes is 3000 jobs, sometimes it's 30,000 jobs. However many it is that is thrown around, and unfortunately a lot of people get enthusiastic about that without having any enforceable ability to ensure they're created or measure the progress toward doing that. And so as you look at the bill in front of you, I challenge you to look at it and see if it has any reference to jobs in it. See if it has any obligation on the part of the developer to provide any jobs, or do any of the other things that were rumored or alleged that might happen as Representative Moore said. And I'm sure he is of the belief that they will happen at some point in time in the future. Again, the city council has voted against this. This is something that needs to get worked out at the local level, if that's going to happen. And I think the principle we're violating once again is to override the authority of the local city council and county commissioners in this case, when they make decisions regarding land use planning. We don't have the ability, I would presume or would wonder, are we now going to monitor this project? Are we going to have them report back to ?? to see if they do all the things that Representative Moore said, since we're going to step into the role of City Council? I would think not. So as you go down that path of displacing city councils and their authority, think about the other part of the responsibility that comes with that. And so again, think about what this bill really says. We have a lot of responsibility. I think this area of development is in Durham. I'm sure it is. And I'm sure it's in some members' district that they represent. And I'm sure most of you do not have proper background and knowledge of what has happened and what is happening in Durham. But I bring you back to this salient issue of job creation, that is not provided for in this bill. That is not provided for in any document related to it, and those of you who are in the Finance Committee heard it. There is no guarantee of any jobs in this

almost irresponsible for us to say these are gonna be jobs that are gonna be provided to North Carolinians. I don't know where people might come from, or who might get the jobs, or what number there might be, but it should not be in your calculation that you're guaranteeing any jobs getting created. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, a lot of things happen when a gun is pointed to your head and some things have to be done. But let me- We had done something in this bill that this legislature has never done before. You're doing forced annexation. If you look at section 2 of the bill, it says "Effective June the 3rd 2023, the corporate limits of the city of Durham are extended by adding the following described property." This is forced annexation. Just that simple. And I've heard all the arguments not- The other thing is very simple, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to see if Rep. Michaux would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux, you realize that water and sewer is about 16 feet from this property. So my question is, would you support this project if it wasn't in the city limits would you support giving them water and sewer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know, because I'm not faced with that question at this point. What I'm telling you is about the forced annexation that's happening, that's something that we have never done before and you know there are other things here. Rep. Hall mentioned the fact that promises have been made, but there's nothing in this legislation that says those promises are going to be kept. Certainly we'd love to have 3000 jobs there, but we've got enough vacant property in Durham right now to do some jobs. We've got people who are looking for work where jobs just not available. We don't know what's going on out there, we don't even know whether the developer is going to stick to his commitment to even build the project or whether he's going to get the water and sewer out there and sell it to somebody else. There's nothing in this legislation that guarantees anything except but the forced annexation of that property out there, and I ask you to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well just to correct a couple of things first. First of all, as someone who worked on forced annexation, at least as much as former Rep. Brown did, this has nothing to do with forced annexation. That's a completely different terminology. As we understand it in this general assembly. In this case it's a really odd scenario where the city is basically refusing to provide services. Cities are there, creatures of the state, to provide basic services. Durham won't provide those services. And when the petitioner's done everything that is, and more, that is required of them, so it's a very strange situation. And I'll also point out, as one of my colleagues pointed out a moment ago, we actually do have, in a different scenario, we do have in our state statutes an opportunity for people to petition to get in to sort of force the city to annex them. We actually did that in the bill that we passed two years ago. More importantly, I think the jobs argument is just a really odd argument to make. These folks who have invested millions and plan on investing millions and millions more. They're ready to finally get going, get this project going, it is a tremendous mixed-use project, it will create thousands of jobs, it's perfectly positioned for the region's transit system and the like, it meets all the requirements of the Jordan Lake rules, it does everything that you could possibly want, and it's being sponsored by some of the best corporate citizens we have in the state of North Carolina. There's just really no reason except some very odd politics over in the city of Durham why they would deny the ability of these property owners to have access to water. Give them access to water. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will Rep. Dollar yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative

Will you guarantee that those things that you talked about will be done? SPEAKER CHANGE I think it's very obvious that they are going to be done. I can't write you a guarantee but I think it's very obvious that it's going to be done. Why will they spend all the mails and dollars and all this time? Anybody is been able to ?? in that entire area; you know whats going on in that area. Its exactly what we wanted, to have housing mix ?? in that area. Its near RTP, it's perfectly positioned, its a great project for the citizens of the state. SPEAKER CHANGE Well gentlemen, here for another question. SPEAKER CHANGE You ever heard of land speculation where you get things on, and then you turn around and sell it for tremendous profits? SPEAKER CHANGE Are you going to guarantee that they are speculators? Is that what you are saying? SPEAKER CHANGE Not for me to guarantee anything except whats in this legislation. SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Ruth quickly state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE Speak on the ?? for the men. Wait for July ?? Gentlemen have the floor. SPEAKER CHANGE Thank You Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, first of all I would like to say that this project is in my legislative district and so I have a special concern about it; and I will tell you that the issue is not about property rights. It's about the question of whether a city council can go through all the different steps that it has done over the years and decide whether they want a project or not, the council of the members, the mayor; and twice the city Council Germans voted against this project, seven to zero the first time, four to three the second time against the project. Now, I am told that there's something wrong with the fact that politics got in the way; but we are in a legislative body and we do politics; they are in city Council, they do politics. SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Hastings, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGE To see if Representative Lowkey would ?? for a question. SPEAKER CHANGE Aye, you SPEAKER CAHNGE Representative Lowkey, do we have a constitutional right to home rule for local governance in the state of North Carolina? SPEAKER CHANGE We have the notion of local government that all of us I thought were elected on a local control and I think I've never heard it as a Republican principle or not as Republican Principle or Democratic Principle. I have heard it as principle of I think almost every member in here that we believe in local control. SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Lowkey, do you ?? SPEAKER CHANGE Sure SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Lowkey, do we have a constitutional right to home rule for local goverments in the state of North Carolina? SPEAKER CHANGE No I fear saying SPEAKER CHANGE Thank You SPEAKER CHANGE Representative Lowkey, you may continue SPEAKER CHANGE Thank You. I'm focusing on the issue of local control on whether how you feel about your town and someone deciding due to lobbying of virtually every member that you've decided you really have the qualifications of being a city council member ?? and that you on the basis of the information that you're given, much of which I could challenge if I wanted to become a civil town 's city council member myself; things like how far the project is from the water; its actually a couple hundred feet in a couple of cases. How many jobs, no one knows where the three thousand jobs came from, but I don't want to go there, I want to go to the extraordinary statement by the rules chairman that politics got in the way of this wonderful project. These projects are subject to the decisions of the city Council and they have the right to do what they do, and suddenly here, it seems many ofthe members have become experts in Dorm politics and dorm decision-making. This doesn't make sense to me. I think the whole idea that the people of North Carolina have an obligation to get involved in Dorm politics because my friend represent more decided two years ago to get involved meddle and dorm politics, again this year, decided to meddle and dorm politics to the point members that our mayor has told all of us that he never would've gotten into involving any conversations about this issue, with represent more, if he had not been told that represent more would be running the bill anyway.

...whether the mayor talked with him or not. Well if you were in that position you would do what the mayor did too. But that’s very different from the mayor going to Representative Moore and saying please ?? a bill. [SpeakerChange] Representative Luebke, please yield. [Speaker Change] I will not yield. [Speaker Change] Please yield Representative Luebke. Representative Stevens please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] I was going to see if the speaker would yield for a question. [Speaker Change] Representative Luebke do you yield? [Speaker Change] At this point I would just like to ?? my remarks. [Speaker Change] He does not yield. [Speaker Change] As I was saying a moment ago, it is extraordinary to me that everyone is become an expert in Durham planning issues in making a decision that if the majority prevails, the people of North Carolina are authorized to make decisions for the city of Durham. That’s really astounding to me. It’s disappointing to me. I don’t think you would want it to happen to you that someone 150 miles away from your town decides that he needs a bill because he thinks he doesn’t like the decisions that the city council of Durham as made. This is just wrong and Mr. Speaker I would like to send forward an amendment. [Speaker Change] Representative Luebke is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Representative Luebke moves to amend the bill on page 1 line 2 through the end of the bill by rewriting those lines to read. [Speaker Change] Representative Luebke you have the floor. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House with this is a straight-forward amendment. It includes all the things that we in the Durham delegation agree on, all six of us. It takes out all the controversial issues around 751 where all has been debating pro and con as if we were all council members. It takes all that out. It allows us to have this bill for Durham on something about which there is a consensus. If you support this amendment, first of all, the bill will no longer be roll called, so you can finish with this business today. That would be one practical reason for you to vote yes on the amendment. But a second reason to vote on the amendment is this. Here you are supporting something that everyone on our Durham delegation supports. There will, if this amendment passes, there will still be a bill that the rules chairman will bring forward that will focus simply on the controversial issues around the 751 project. Then we can have a clean debate about that issue. So if you support this amendment, we will be able to debate the issues of Durham 751 project another day. But at least we have here a bill that is a consensus bill, all of us, House and Senate from Durham. Thank you. Move for adoption of the amendment. [Speaker Change] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To speak on the amendment. [Speaker Change] Gentleman is recognized. [Speaker Change] Members, Mr. Speaker, this amendment simply guts the bill. It takes out all the provisions protecting the property rights of these landowners. It is an attempt that the gentleman tried to do in Finance and is trying to do that again on the floor. So members if you support this bill, very simply, please oppose the amendment and vote not. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Further discussion or further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Amendment A-1, Representative Luebke’s amendment to Senate Bill 315. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the roll to vote. The Clerk will close the machine and record the vote. Those in favor are 136, those opposed 72. The amendment fails. We are now back on the bill. I am sorry 36, I said 136. I am getting older. I am losing my mind. Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Gentleman has the floor. [Speaker Change] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen we debated this bill for about an hour in Finance and it was a lot of good debate that came through the committee. Through that whole process we heard the pros and cons. And over several days we heard the stories of this gentleman. The $9.5 million commitment for road front improvements, the improvements he is willing to make with the infrastructure through the property. Him trying to comply with the mayor and city council. We have heard all the stories, and the biggest scenario is there is not a person in this room, with the exception of eight people probably, that wouldn’t die to have this back home in your community. We’re all scratching our heads…

trying to figure out what's going on in Durham. Ladies and gentlemen, we paid a hundred and ten million dollars to get 1,500 jobs. So what if it don't give me 3,000. It's infrastructure, half a billion dollars going up, and it's not costing us anything but water and sewer just 16 feet away. 16 feet. Now what's more important is, if you've ever served on a city council, Representative Luebke got it right, it's a lot of politics. I've sat there a million days and seen one guy get told no and another guy get told yes. And we all know it's wrong. You've been back home, you know who controls what back home. And this is nothing but home cooking for a certain group, and I don't even know who they are. I don't really care who they are, but I'll tell you, this is a great bill, an opportunity. We've talked about jobs. Representative Luebke, you stood up, yourself, and said, "Where are the jobs?" On all the legislation we pass, "Where is the jobs?" We're going to send potentially 3,000 jobs in your backyard, give or take a thousand, and you're saying no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the gentleman state his point of order? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Was the gentleman making an impugning statement toward Representative Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not believe so. I believe that the gentleman's point is not well taken, and the gentleman is debating the bill. Representative Stone may continue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to see if Representative Stone would yield for a couple questions for me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, I've been learning and listening a lot more about this project, and am I correct when I say that the city regularly sells its water at double the rate to anyone else in the county? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Currently, the city, municipality is allowed to sell to anyone outside the incorporated area at double the cost of water and sewer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Followup, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And, Representative Stone, didn't this project offer to do that with the city of Durham, simply buy water at double the rate and not have this issue of incorporation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, that's been the question. They've complied with everything the city and the county of Durham have offered them to get something up and going, so they've been willing to be in the city limits, to not be in the city limits, to pay double the rates. I can't imagine an enterprise fund in the state of North Carolina that had capacity 16 feet from its lines and someone's going to pay for the complete infrastructure and saying no to the double rates, not one enterprise fund in the state of North Carolina could I imagine that happening in. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And, Mr. Speaker, one more question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And did the city of Durham offer the developer any reason that it would treat it different from any other property developer there, by means of not selling the water at double the amount? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not only did they not offer any reason, they're currently selling waters to other people outside the incorporated area. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll finish up quickly, because I'm sure your eight or ten more lights have come on, but you've all seen finance. We had eight people, after over an hour of deliberation about this bill, and we had bipartisan support to move forward. We all hate that these items come to the General Assembly, and they should be handled back home. But sometimes common sense has to prevail and that's why we do the people's business. I'd ask you to support this bill, and let's move forward, let's get the jobs, and let's promote North Carolina and move forward. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House, I'm just rising since we're all being accused of meddling in the Durham affairs and trying to be Durham's city councilmen, but I think what's at issue to most of us is the fact that these are jobs for North Carolina and North Carolinians. We all know that when a business expands or locates here, the people who work there at that business are not always living right in that county. We also have tough economic times. We're being told again and again by the minority and the minority leader that we ought to concentrate on jobs. We have been excoriated time and again for not taking speculative jobs when we don't take federal money that's claimed to lead to jobs. Then the same people that jump on us and pillory us turn around and, when there's jobs being created by private investment and economic growth that we covet, we all covet, they don't want it. And I just find that

only ironic and Don not understandable. now all these people will contribute to the income and tax revenue for the state don't be additional sales tax revenue. a true multiplier of private investment.this is exactly the way, what we say everybody counter claims there down here to try to do and then we get a perfect tangible sample of a project in which you are asking for no money whatsoever from the state and some do want to turn it down and I would vote against the bill in this project to come to Guilford or surrounding county that would be the way you could get me to vote against this bill, but I'm almost thinking Mister Speaker, we might need to warm a new cost sharing: a list by caucus or the nihilist caucus because I can't understand why we won't take these jobs. there's no need for a guarantee because there's no state money involved. so if it's only a thousand jobs rather than three thousand. there's no claw back. there's nothing to claw back. we need to do this. I'm sorry it can be misinterpreted by some as meddling into local by laws. I represent a complicated purpose will generally [SPEAKER CHANGES] have a question or give us view you represent Michelle, I will gladly yielding although you need to lecture someone your size, bit, they need to start yielding. also, you shall be in him is not questioned the user is that our using it. no statement is involved with third-party development in your question, but do you not believe it is that it would involve this should be protected. also, will part. I think there may be some up front. I don't know them read him dying, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Frost T I don't know myself and paid the sixteen feet someone else in two hundred feet to actually connect to the water and sewer. but what we were told the committee was not paid double the rates for these utilities, so I don't believe over time is going to cost the city a dime and I think that will more than be made up in property tax revenue and additional job at a time when people are baking in the state begging for job. been written the paper we get told about seventy thousand people. the federal government about to cut off a lot of voters would probably apply for these jobs. so, I just can't understand what we don't go ahead and do this and take these jobs. I will support the bill was great to finish our present purpose, and is ready to quit brother, but you get my e-mail to you using the job or jobs record of the show. I can't remember exactly how much is been paid for the property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] already it is going to be invested, but I think it's us. you can assume that someone that puts this kind of money is going to build the factory and hire people to run the factory visit in the data centre where you'll spend twenty million dollars and get sixteen jobs. this is going to be producing things, there will be production jobs, management jobs, transportation jobs all kinds of jobs not because there would be needed to actually make the product distributor. the product and get the revenue so that the business will make money from them shortly. take a purpose that I don't get a Hathor, the English figure this is an excellent project and I'm still mystified as to why my friends and Aaron did not seem to want this project. some of the leaders of urine that is, they can pack it up and move it to my county would love. we take it obvious it is not a practical solution at this property rights is if you don't support this bill. that amounts to allowing a municipality to use water as weapon against development water as a weapon, you may have a municipality in your district that uses water for the same purpose as a middle of the few that want to monopolize water resources as a weapon, you may know the few I know of a few. if you do not agree with these kind of tactics and I would urge you to support this bill. thank you, Representative Ford to acid is also close clues in the morning you are younger, my good friend, you represent the more

Other top sheet made with the exhibition and content of the excess of the country that's coming days to decide on that these are the unsung minus-23 White House to have a service in any of the section of the browse the education of. Access is denied it was as a decision on the senate in the text and August in us to live out of the Montana law resemble the privately in access and everything that you see that the takeover of the slide in the community as a country that means and one gets you know that if we didn't mesh with the city of big blow at am an ex-story from the U.S. Open at UCLA and that was as the courthouse last day of the behalf of the shoes of the invitation of annexation to say to me that it will be less clear than that of the ba-quarter net income into the city to city already has been a victim was to stop the edge of question as well as applied to Cumberland County today as a teacher's of any symptoms of this status of this what has made it safely say this is a Leon Lett us with sixties requirement for a siege from the receiver services in a way to express your storm the city has a lot of the city's governing orders against the annexation or scrap the drought services later by a state within 60 days instead of requesting, are at his house and garden of prayer has agreed to all of us must agree to install script annexation order to testifying that the deficit was an orientation or to lobby for me is that later use all the signs of moscow's be OK for several days-granddaughter of an organization of or was your name: our efforts which has a larger set aside for India they are in the lousy 8 hours of lives of three and section of three on a utility has upset and all of this event last temptation of all the plans kids as the concern is that he's the person you think that is hot in size with his days at a dry eye medicine of senator jack when Jordan and Turkey hunting of shares in city Parks even get into one of the screen of our standard in the least and represented a profit and loss is to dominate as floating rate is for us to our identity of government and the citizens and his love you understand the end of 1% of the audience of as a lot of older and outlook: the years ago and never your city child can't say the same hole in the water we continue our subnet and Somalia for most of the child how did you receive my request lord has the opposite side of the tile is no rights of women as well as it has started child if we want to know every hour if they have a political connections with the intent of the last to make sure there's a proxy as possible when a child of the business. Actress

As I said in the beginning, I admire you standing by your convictions, but I think as an old country boy, we're starting off in the wrong direction. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for a second time to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, all 7 members of the Durham city council, council and mayor, were elected by the people of Durham, they have to stand for reelection. And if the people don't like what was done with this 751 South project, well what they tried to do with this 751 project in terms of making a decision about it, the people would vote them out. That's what we have elections for in November 2013, and then November 2015. One time or another, everyone who voted for or against this project has to stand before the people of the city of Durham. And I'm really disappointed, really disappointed that people do not respect that part of the democratic process. Here, it seems many of you have been given a lot of information that may or may not be accurate, but many of you are using it to tell us in Durham, tell our city council indirectly through us, what they should have done. I would welcome many of you who are now so well versed as you think on this project that you come before the city council and testify, and told the city council what the city council should do. But to sit here in the State House and decide you don't like what the council did, and therefor you're going to over-ride the council, just seems extraordinary. Would you really want that to happen in your town? I don't think really, if you think about it, you'd want the General Assembly to come in and tell you, and I won't name towns but I see where everybody's from, the General Assembly come in and tell your town council that they made a mistake and you're going to reverse their decision. It's just wrong. I know Representative Moore said at the beginning we're going to hear the word 'meddling', and you are going to hear meddling because that's exactly what you are doing. You may think otherwise, but look the word up, meddling in the dictionary, and you'll see that if you vote yes on this bill, you have meddled in the issues of the Durham City Council, and by extension, the issues of the people of Durham. I hope you vote no, and I appreciate all of you who vote no in the name of local control. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The question before the House is the passage of House Committee substitute No. 3 to Senate Bill 315. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will close the machine and record the vote. Those in favor are 73, those opposed 31. The House Committee substitute No. 3 to Senate Bill 315 has passed its second reading and will remain of the calendar. Senate Bill 399, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]House Committee substitute to Senate Bill 399, a bill a bill to entitle and act to amend constitution, to provide that a person accused of any criminal offense in Superior Court, for which the State is not seeking a sentence of death, may waive the right to trial by jury, and instead be tried by judge. General Assembly of North Carolina in act. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, members of the House, first, just a word on procedure, this is a constitutional amendment so it's a roll call vote, but we can do a 2nd and 3rd tonight, but it is a roll call both times, and if you're out of the chamber, it's like voting no. It requires 72 votes regardless of how many people vote. Hopefully it will be unanimous. North Carolina Constitution for a long time has provided that if you plead not guilty in a criminal case, you have to be tried by a unanimous jury of 12 people. Now this is contrary for example, to Federal Court, you know, Eastern District, Western District, except Middle District where you can be tried by a judge. It's different than a lot of states where a person can waive a jury trial. The purpose of jury trial, of course, is to protect the defendant from oppression by the state. So why

[Speaker changes.]...Why should the defendant not be able to wave that, with the consent of the judge and that's what this does. It allows us, in cases where the judge agrees, to have a 'judge trial'...not capital cases but a trial just by the judge if the defendant and the judge agree. The rules on that would be set by the General Assembly and there's also a statute there so the Governor would hafta sign this as well...that says how to do that. I think it's as simple as that so I'll sit down unless you have some questions. [Speaker changes.] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Speak to the bill, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker and I agree completely with Representative Stam, this bill was actually well-negotiated and I will tell you that it is approved by both the North Carolina ?????? for Justice on the defense side, DA's Conference on the prosecution side, and it also has protections in it that were negotiated to make sure that any time a defendant waves the trial, the judge must determine that it's a knowing and voluntary waiver and I think this is long overdue. I would encourage everyone to vote for it. [Speaker changes.] The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 399 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. 104 have voted in the affirmative, one in the negative. The House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 399 has passed its second reading without objection...will be read a third time. [Speaker changes.] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [Speaker changes.] Further discussion. Further debate? Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Thank ya, Mister Speaker. I'd like to ask to change my vote on Senate Bill 177 from a no to a yes. The gentleman re-record as having voted aye. [Speaker changes.] Representative Robert Brawley, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Would like to change my vote on Senate Bill 103 to no. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman re-record as voting no. [Speaker changes.] Representative Ford, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To change my vote on Senate Bill 103 to no. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman report as voting no. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker, I'd like to be recorded as voting aye on Senate Bill 132. I was in the chamber. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye. [Speaker changes.] Representative Daughtry, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] It's just a roll call vote. [Speaker changes.] It is a constitutional amendment vote. We will take electronic reading. Well, the debate certainly stimulated a lot of vote changes but is there any discussion or debate on the bill before us? The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 399 on its third reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Farmer-Butterfield. Clerk will lock machine, record the vote. 104 having voted the affirmative, one in the negative. The House Committe Substitute to Senate Bill 399 has passed its third reading. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker? [Speaker changes.] Gentleman will yield...will be returned to the Senate. Representative Martin, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] For Parliamentary inquiry. [Speaker changes.] Gentleman may state his inquiry. [Speaker changes.] Thank you very much, Mister Speaker and I hope that is the right form. This inquiry regards the questioning of other members and it's prompted by the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Blust's comments to the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux, on yielding to questions and this is a sincere inquiry that I don't know the answer but my inquiry is...does Section 114 of Mason's Legislative manual, which I spend too much time perusing when the debate goes long. Does that apply in this body when questioning other members, specifically the portion that says that does allow members to interupt other members but specifically notes "unless some good reason exists, they should wait until the member has concluded speaking". [Speaker changes.] The Chair would acknowledge that that may have been the case in that discourse and in dozens of other discourses over the course of this session. Maybe even hundreds. (Breathy laugh.) House Bill 67, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute for House Bill 67, a bill to be in final enact to make charter schools eligible to receive permanent... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

all points. Carolina is an adult residual for debate to demonstrate most of it go. I just think realizes him a house at hours layout a very great. I is you have questions on this bill passed the two communities with a very favourable reports. this is basically not a permanent license plate bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you so much as it is a bill that charter schools and simply recognizes that charter schools are public school sand are giving them the same rights as traditional public schools. I would just point out to you to does has nothing to do with the caramelized claim they'll do past in the last session and this is a clarification of existing alone. when asked to your sport. the question before the House 's passage of the House committee since two thousand and sixty seven on a second reading on a remote own president of about four blog sheet for the ninety nine have an affirmative jury in a negative house mate is understood as the sixty seventh at second reading without objection be rather John Johnson and more air lineand discuss it further back if not question for the house is best to best reasons it out to sixty seven hundred star rating. all ever say I hope is a note guys have announced me sensitive down to sixty seven is best to start reading the sentence on members of the medicine chair is called the question of Gentiles without asking for discussion or debate chairs incidences zero two that everyone who wishes to speak has spoken will do it on third reading, but if you wish to state that make sure your light is on and is not of the zero four question Houston tonight to incorporate September hospital tonight to build entitled an act to establish study coming in their life. chapter Johnson of North Carolina is vertically centre two degrees ago. please [SPEAKER CHANGES] was recognizably they get also be relatively quick and easy therapies were interesting group with three of North Carolina's universities offer bachelors and Masters degrees in this study, and we were try to put together licensing bill and we ran across some unique features that we decided that it might be better if we study it until the title the short session, and then we'll have better answers for those last years of work to study the thank you question for the house is the passage of House tonight to honour the house ready substitute of genetic units at reading. however, but all was that" foreclosure" ninety eight. I'm going to ferment for the negative as news is to never do for Houston janitors at second reading without objection, the present of our present purpose in life manipulation of the second calendar DLA vice and promotion of the ways that health bill nine five nine be returned in the committee without objection, so water is no more stolen genetic to further discussion for the device builder of their time. Johnson, a North Carolina the question for the House 's passage of the house may substitute over two thousand two, ninety two and a third rating on Thursday. hope is a note it as having the house results are never due to [SPEAKER CHANGES] Houston genetic to as fast as their grading at seven oh one seventy one rate research& Bill one seventy four, built and hot. an act disapproved certain rules adopted by the Carlisle industrial commission to provide specific directions to the industrial commission to replace through central mansard revisions of the work is top section law. Johnson wanted a representative Jordan 's purpose built on his record as a shaker at Mesa state of percent of one seventy or disapproves areas rules of the industrial commission, relate, Norquist, Tomdirects the industrial commission of how to replace the disapprove rules and men's related statutes. this bill represents a success story is a consensus bill worked out between the plaintiff and defense sides of the Worker's Comp. Rostand 's valid verdure approval of the bill by putting

The question for the House is the passage of Senate Bill 174 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record. Representative Martin, the clerk will out machine record the vote. One hundred one having voted affirmative, two in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 174 has passed its second reading without objection. It’ll be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina in action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 174 on its third reading. All in favor vote aye, say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 174 has passed its third reading, be returned to the Senate. Senate Bill 280 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 280. A bill entitled an act allowing noon-state employees affiliated with the Transportation Museum to drive state-owned vehicles; expanding the authority of the Department of Cultural Resources and the Tryon Place to charge admission and related activity fees. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will yield. Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen this bill will allow the Cultural Resource Department and the Tryon Palace to do several things, and the Transportation Museum. First, the Transportation Museum will be allowed to have non-state employees drive state owned vehicles on the property of the Transportation Museum. They will be insured while they’re doing that. And it authorizes the Department of Cultural Resources to charge admission and related activity fees at its tourist sites, and related activity fees at museums. They can already charge admission fees at museums. It’ll authorize the Tryon Palace Commission to charge admission and related activity fees. They already charge admission fees. It will help broaden their ability to raise some funds. And it establishes the A+ School’s Special Fund, and the Department of Cultural Resources on behalf of the North Carolina Art’s Council. The A+ School’s Special Fund has already received the fund ??. The Cultural Resources has already received donations in support of the A+ School’s, and this will set up the fund to handle those donations and disperse them appropriately. I’d appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, Fort Fisher is a wonderful historic site. It’s located in southern New Hanover County, which is in my district. The provisions of section two, paren little a end paren, of this proposed House Committee Substitute contains language that they wanted me to pursue. I want to thank Representative Cleveland for assisting this language, being included in this bill. And I hope that you all will support it. Please vote in favor of the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the fee bill offered by Representative Cleveland? The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 280 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members please record Representative George Graham. Clerk will out machine record the vote. One hundred and one vote in the affirmative, one in the negative. The House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 280 has passed its second reading without objection, it’ll be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assemble of North Carolina in action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 280 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 280 has [passed its third reading, to be returned to the Senate. Representative Martin, we are very close to getting you on your way. The only thing between you and that is any comments to be made from the floor. Senate Bill 321, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute number two for Senate Bill 321, a bill to be entitled an act to cap reimbursement by counties to make addition and provisions for payment for medical services provided to inmates in county jails and to allow counties to utilize Medicaid for eligible prisoners and to provide vacancies… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will yield. Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, this bill, the large part of that bill would allow…

The county's the same cost-containment measures that currently this body has given the corrections for jail inmate services, and as a good bill worked with many stakeholders to address the different needs. And I think there's a good bit of consensus on that bill. There is an additional provision regarding the District Court judge appointments, and I'd be happy to stand and answer any questions on this bill [Speaker changes] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose [Speaker changes] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker [Speaker changes] Stand and be recognized to debate the bill [Speaker changes Thank you, Mr. speaker. I am in full agreement with the first three sections of the bill which I know have been worked on, and I think in fact I had a corresponding bill with several others in here on the House side. I don't disagree with it at all. But section 4 was added, and I'm going to speak to section 4. One of the reasons I stayed without going on to something I needed to do, was to speak to this section. The law that's being changed by PCS added in rules without any discussion prior to that, without any notice to the bar, without any notice to judges, changes the whole selection of the District Court judge bench in North Carolina. The rule in North Carolina up until today was that if there was a vacancy in your District Court bench, that the bar met of that area and nominated three candidates to the Governor. The Governor then was to select one of those three with that being as good a vetting process as we have in this state. And if the Governor failed to appoint a bar nominee within 60 days, the bar then the person who received the highest votes would receive the nomination. The attempt to do that years ago when Democrats were in control, was to keep the politics as much as possible - given what we're talking about - out of the merit selection of judges at the District bar for vacancies. And that was to keep people like Mike Geezly from making a political decision, and people like Bever???? from making that decision. Because the understanding was that those members of the local bar knew their lawyers the best. They knew who was showing up in court and who was doing the job, and who wasn't. And they nominated folks, three people, so that cliques in the bar couldn't just nominate one, or party politics would be minimized, because hopefully there were enough that you'd get a good quality assortment of candidates. And the Governor didn't have to choose the first or second nominee, but he or she had to choose one of the three. And that was done as the country has moved, as Justice O'Connor has long argued, to as much merit selection as we can. That's not to say that in certain bars, there weren't politics played. And it's certainly not to say that the Governor's level of politics didn't get played about which of the three. This bill removes any check and balance. This bill says, as I read it, the Governor now may choose one of the three, but doesn't have to. They can choose anybody they want. That is moving us in the completely opposite direction from what the country's doing. It is moving inordinate politics back into the process. It diminishes the quality of what we're doing. It diminishes the integrity of the appointment. It takes the local bar out of the process, and it is fundamentally wrong. I wouldn't vote for it if Governor Easly was governor, or Governor Hunt was governor, or Governor Purdue were governor, and I'm not going to vote for it now. And it has nothing to do with party or politics, but it has everything to do with what I believe is the integrity of the process. Now someone may suggest that my reading's wrong, and I will certainly withdraw my comments. But I've read through it a bunch, and I've talked to people. And I believe that's exactly what this bill does in this provision. I really don't care who it's for or why it's done, but it is wrong. And we should vote against it and have that provision taken out, and let the bill go as forward. But to say that we're gonna undo the only merit selection check we have on appointment of District Court judge vacancies is, to me - with due respect to my colleagues - absolutely wrong. Thank you. [Speaker changes] Representative Moore, please state your purpose.

to speak to the bill the gentleman ?? the bill [change speaker] thank you. members the first three sections are agreed upon provisions that were worked out among the county commissioners association and the folks at the hospitals. the final provision was, i understand that i did speak with a representative from the bars the association that they weren't going to take a position on the bill with that provision.?? came from a broader bill that represented ?? and there were some provisions that were deemed controversial. this provision as i understand was not deemed controversial. but the way it works right now and i think its an interesting conundrum is if there is a vacancy in a district court judgeship the attorneys in that district get together and submit thee names and the governor must pick from those three names. now i;m a member of my local bar but nobody elected me in that bar and no body elected any of those attorneys so why should an unelected group unaccountable to the public have the right to control who the governor who is elected we don't have that requirement on superiors court judges who do death peaty cases ore several cases involving generally more money, the felony cases, the governor simply appoints a superior court judge and there is not any input from the bar. It's the same when there are other vacancies in other offices. the appeals court, the supreme court, at least at this way, the governor appoints whom ever the governor deems appropriate from that area. Ive always had a problem with the fact that attorneys who are not allocated int he bar make that selection. that just seems as un-democratic ca process as i can think of. Are there politics involved in judicial appointment, there probably are its just a different type of politics when you have a bunch of lawyers in the room narrowing down the list of who the judge can appoint. Mrs turner has probably sen this sort of thing I't's the reality folks. [change speaker] representative miss shaw please speak your purpose. [change speaker] will the gentleman answer the question [change speaker] representative Moore i'm ?? why this was not run through the normal process through a j committee, somewhere so it could be vetted without it being added to a bill that came out - that's my question why was it not handled in the usually course of business? [change speaker] it's the representative that shows that bill had been pending a while and there was parts of the bill that when it came up for discussion i think were deemed controversial and everything i heard so far was that this was a controversial it got the attorneys in here worked up and i know she all get worked up in things hen everybody is ready to go home but i didn't believe it was controversial it was just failure [change speaker] but even with it's deemed fail. why not let it go through the regular process and you get the same result wouldn't you? When you start talking about judges and the judicial system and all that, it comes a very sensitive area and I think that just adding this in here now without any bedding accept on the floor here is just wrong and particularly when you put it in a bill that you know is a good bill thats going to have to pass anyway, this is just seemed a little under handed to me. [change speaker] My response simply is you've been here longer than i have and we've seen plenty of times where you take a senate bill and you add some things to it and send it back and that original senate bill ad nothing to do with what we put in, we've always done that, i know that and look at what i think we had ab ill earlier on the counter and we did a pcs on some hints it's the end of session and were hoping to go hoe here at the end of the week if we start running things through a whole committee that just simply kills the whole idea [change speaker] mr speaker my i ask another question -- because it was done in the past, because

Does it make it right? Two wrongs make a right? I mean, just because it was done, I mean, we certainly all of us are guilty of having done these things but here again when you come to sensitive things like judges and the judicial system, I think you ought to have, well you know. Do you think just because we’ve done it before it’s right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would, I would never say that but I will say that I don’t think it’s wrong. I think that when we do a PCS to a bill that’s part of the process and in all candor, I’m surprised that there’s any controversy about the provision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may state her motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, in light of all the discussion that we’ve had, and the concerns that have been raised, I would move that we refer this matter back to a Judiciary Committee to review this matter. And it could be the full judiciary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t think there’s a motion, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s motion is to re-refer to Judiciary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would just, I would respectfully ask the lady if we could avoid doing that, I mean I’m assuming somebody’s going to object to third and if they are then we’ll get to deal with it on July the 8th. So we can all just kick it around between now and then if you want. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may make an inquiry? ?? chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his, or the lady may state her inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has already met crossover, so is there even a problem if we wait and deal with it in the short session? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I mean we could take that philosophy and I guess adjourn and go home and not deal with a lot of things but I think we probably ought to, we probably ought to do it so if, I mean I’ll be glad to object to second reading, to third reading if you want to just want keep it over. So I would ask members, I would ask members to either vote no on the motion unless the lady wants to withdraw the motion with the understanding that we’re going to object third reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion? Representative Burr, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would just respectfully ask to speak on the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask that members oppose the motion you know I, this is something that’s been tossed around this year. It’s been out there and you know it’s simply removing the requirement that the Governor have to appoint who they recommend. It’s not tying the Governors hands anymore. This is as Representative Moore mentioned, not a requirement for all the other judicial positions, the Supreme Court, Superior Court, the Court of Appeals. I think this is something we can continue to take up on the floor and continue the discussion as we go through third reading and we can have, if I would ask respectfully that members vote no on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion? Representative Jackson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’d like to speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, ladies and gentlemen if you’re watching dashboard you’ll see that I have an amendment already put in a few hours ago to take the section out of the bill. But I think the better of the process is to refer this back to Judiciary to do that and I just want to talk about the process a little bit if I could on my motion. It’s a shame that Representative Dockham gave his farewell speech and said respect the House to everybody earlier today, because as of 5:30 last night when the PCS was sent to me, this provision was not in the bill. In fact, it just showed up at 2 something when we showed up in Rules Committee. Representative Moore says he doesn’t know of any controversy. The reason why he doesn’t know of any controversy’s cuz nobody knew this was on the table for today until he slipped it in Rules. He is Rules Chairman. He’s got 50 bills in his Committee, he could gut and amend any bill he wanted to run this individual provision by itself. But he don’t want to do that, he wants to tie it to something that a lot of people, the hospital associations, county commissioners, the sheriffs, a lot of us local, our local hospitals have worked very hard on to get this bill through. This, you know I, one thing I want to say is I thought Pryor Gibson left last session. And those who serve with Pryor know exactly what I’m talking about. Because ?? do. But that’s what this is. It’s not necessary. We can run this bill if you want to have that debate with, let’s have that debate another day. I’d ask you to support this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had two people speak and not stand, Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Many of you may not be aware that I filed legislation this session that contains all of the components of Sections 1 through 3 of this bill and so I really.

thinking and I think we agree that this is very important that we work with our prison system. I’m appalled to see that we have something else added there and I think we ought to have this go back to the J committee and see if it ought to be there. Let’s at least have some debate on it because I think the first three parts of this are just too important for us to be confused about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I don’t say this for any other reason than to explain how deeply some of us feel about this bill or this provision. An hour and a half ago I was supposed to be home at my own fundraiser. I stayed and I’m not at it for a lot of reasons, but this was the main one. We’re elected here to do our job and to do it and think through things thoughtfully and intelligently and in an informed manner. We are here to do the right thing, not for any special interests or groups and I think almost all of us believe that and do that on both sides of the aisle. This is a judiciary change. If a matter that changes how we appoint the judiciary ought not go to a judiciary committee, what should? Representative Stevens is right. There may be, in the end, votes to do it or not, but it deserves to be heard in a judiciary committee. We deserve to hear the members of the bar. We deserve to hear the judiciary comment on it. We deserve to hear the bar comment on it. That is fundamentally what we should be doing to make any kind of intelligent decision on this. We are talking about the future of the appointments of the judiciary of North Carolina. I totally support Representative Stevens motion to re-refer to judiciary and hope that we will all do so. Maybe, if we’re lucky, by consent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Robert Volley please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d ask Representative Glazier a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, this takes some of the decision making process out of the hands of the attorneys. Isn’t the bar association, I mean the judiciary committee made up primarily of attorneys? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The judiciary committee, I think, has a mixture in our body of attorneys and non-attorneys. Obviously a lot of attorneys are on it, some, I think, are on commerce. I haven’t looked at the combination. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. . [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First off, I wanted to let Representative Jackson know I’m not ?? for one. If I was I’d be talking about toolboxes and catfish, I guess. But we did actually find a technical issue so as a result of the technical problem we found, I told Representative Stevens I’m going to join her request and withdraw my objection that the bill go back to judiciary because there’s a problem that needs fixed with it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the consensus motion to send the bill to judiciary. If not, the question before the House is the motion to re-refer the House committee substitute to Senate Bill 321 to judiciary. All in favor vote aye. Or if the gentleman removes his objection, we can take it by leave of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I did withdraw my objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there further objection? So ordered. Senate Bill 337. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute number two for Senate Bill 337. The bill has been entitled an act to create the North Carolina charter school advisory board and make other changes to charter school laws. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. . [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate and explain the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, speaking of things you thought you’d never do, I am going to speak briefly and then I think Representative Hardister is going to speak on this bill. Senate Bill 337 is Senator Tillman’s bill and when it emerged from the Senate, I would have been leading the charge against it. As it set out a new board that would have taken the whole charter school issue and made it independent of the state board of education creating a real constitutional conundrum. But this doesn’t do that. There is...

An intense negotiation. Representative Johnson being involved. Representative Hardister, Representative Stam. A number of people. And the end result of what this bill does is create an advisory board to the state board on charter schools. It also has eliminated all of the controversial provisions with regard to funding issues and admissions issues. Now would write the bill exactly as it is? No. But on this issue I don’t think other there’d be 120 bills if we all got to write it. And so I disagree with the portion on licensure but the vast majority of this bill simply creates a new mechanism and maybe an improved one to handle the charter recommendation process which still is fundamentally with the state board of education where I believe it constitutionally must be. Because I believe it’s been negotiated in extraordinary good faith by the Senators involved and the Representatives involved. Because of the amendments . Representative Whitmire and Representative Hardister and I and others offered that were accepted in the education committee it is my view that good faith compromise work ought to receive deference. And with that I will be supporting and voting the bill, for the bill, encourage my colleagues to do so. And Mr. Speaker I hope that you would recognize Representative Hardister. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. In the interest of time, I’m not going to say a lot other than my colleague Representative Glazier did an excellent job of summarizing the bill. The discussion that we had in the House education committee’s one of the best discussions I’ve ever seen and heard. We did a great job working with all the stake holders who were interested in the bill. It has bipartisan support. And essentially what it does is again, my, my seatmates acts like he’s gonna turn my light off. I think he’s ready to drive back to the coast. Bye. But essentially what it does is it sets up the charter school advisory board which has no rule making authority. It simply provides advice and input to the state board of education. It also will make certain changes to certain laws that pertain to the operation of charter schools. I think it’s a great bill. I hope you’ll support it. And I know we’re all ready to go home. So let’s vote for, for this bill. Feel good about it and go home. Although I think we have maybe one more on the calendar. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell moves to amend the bill on page 14, line 10 by inserting the following sentence after the word fund/g. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is a simple amendment that I believe is agreeable with Representative Hardister. It does one small item. It basically inserts a provision that says in the event of a dispute between the local school system and a charter school over the calculation in transference of the pupil, per pupil shares, that as an alternative to litigation they may use a process of mediation that’s provided for in GS115C-230A. I ask the house to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen I believe this is a good amendment. I spoke to Representative Blackwell earlier as well as Representatives Stam and Glazier before session today. And I think this is a good amendment and I hope you’ll support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke/g [UNKNOWN] do you wish to speak on the bill? Present discussion, present debate on the amendment? If not the question before the House is the amendment’s import/g by Representative Blackwell for the House to substitute number two for Senate bill 337. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will now machine the vote. 101 having voted in the affirmative. None the negative. The amendment passes. We’re back on the bill. Representative Luebke/g is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Speak briefly on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Members of the House if your House education committee may remember that I looked at this, as I looked at this bill, I mean, I agree first of all with the advocates of the bill that it is an extraordinarily improved bill over what came over from the Senate. The Senate bill gave far too much authority to charter, to a charter board. It was potentially in conflict with the state board of education. But what we’ve done here in my judgment is elevate the charter schools to position that appears almost equal to the state, to the traditional public

I think it is unneccessary to have a special advisory board, after all 90% of the kids in the state attend traditional public schools. So I don't think the advisory board is needed, I think what we are doing right now with the advisory board for the advising the council for the church schools is just fine. So I'm gonna vote against the amendment and I'm sorry, against the bill. ?? two as well, Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is to pass it to the house committee substitute number two to senate bill 337 as amended on it's 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. 87 having voted in affirmative, 14 in negative. The house committee substitute number two to senate bill 337 as amendment has passed it's second reading with out objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection have been raised. The bill remains on the counter for what may promise to be a very late Monday night. Senate bill 683 the ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for senate bill 683. The bill being entitled an act to create a safe harbor for victims of human trafficking and for prostituted minors caught ?? ?? North Carolina human traffic commission ?? for all consideration ?? inmates. ?? of ?? ?? ??. General assembly of North Carolina in act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative of Forsyth, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I heard you say something ?? ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may stay as ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye, sitting back here and reading and I thought you said something but it's been a long session but. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, wait for Monday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You'll have plenty of rest. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 6. Bill's ?? before us. The house ??. Representative of Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I briefly do explain the bill but I think Mr. Speaker since Representative Hamilton is the chief sponsor she has a comment first. If you might recognize her. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and representative Glazier. It is my pleasure to tonight to bring before this body a very important bill and a ?? bill that we worked together on honestly entire session with senate and house democrats and republicans. It's the bill on human trafficking. For many of you may have heard North Carolina ranks eight in the nation for the worst in terms of human trafficking in the United States of America. And the community in which I live is one of the worst cities in the state of North Carolina for that issue. We set out to accomplish three things by creating the first real comprehensive human trafficking and safe harbor laws in North Carolina. The first was to recognize who the true victims are. The ones who are being held against their will and are sold to slavery. The second was to punish the perpetrators who are profiting from the trade. And the third is to educate law enforcement and assist them on their efforts to identify the real victims and help those victims rehabilitate their lives. I appreciate everyone's effort on this and in particular representative Ted Davis, representative Skiff Stam, representative Rick Glazier, representative Becky Carney, representative Bobbie Richardson, I beg your pardon representative Richardson and the many folks in senate who helped as well. Special thanks goes to my District Attorney Dan David and and Lindsey Robertson, his assistant district attorney who also ?? on the bill. And with that I'm going to turn it over to representative Glazier. That's to explain some of the contents of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, does gentleman also intends to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Speaker, it's a technical change. I guess I am. I would like to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman recognized to send forth an amendment, ?? ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier moves ?? the bill on page 17, line ?? through 14 by re writing those lines ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Briefly, this is a technical change members and that's all of this to provision with regard to commission that is created on trafficking is requested by the Attorney general is really just a housing of the commission.

I know of no opposition. It is requested the A.G.’s office. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir, the discussion on the amendment, if not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by representative Glazier for the house committee substitute of Senate Bill 683. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will opt machine record the vote. One-hundred having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Glazier is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Very briefly, I’m not going to go through the provisions as we did in sub-committee, but I will say this was the work of Representative Conrad, Representative Richardson, Representative… myself, it’s getting late, Representative Faircloth. And I really do appreciate everyone’s work. The one thing I think you should know - because it’s a far more reaching bill than just trafficking - it totally rewrites the prostitution laws of North Carolina as well. And so, since you may get asked this question because this is going to affect thousands of potential criminal cases, you should know that the way this was done, unanimously in the sub-committee and in the committee, is to create four offenses. The offenses are of prostitution…thank you Mr. Speaker… the offense of prostitution – and the big change here is to recognize that most women who are forced into prostitution are victims. They are not criminal defendants. And we ought to stop treating them as defendants and start treating them as the victims they are, having been forced, sometimes for survival, often for survival, to engage in prostitution. And so, this bill specifically creates a deferred prosecution capacity for those victims and allows them to be treated that way and for minors under the age of 18, for 16 and 17 year olds, mandates that we treat them as victims. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to know if my colleague would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, is there any opposition to this bill at this late day? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, I doubt that, but because I think this bill engages some long, large provisions that people at least need some explanation on, I’d like to take 2 more minutes to do that. This change is as I suggested – and so for any minor who is stopped for prostituting, they will now have deferred prosecution – which I must commend Representative Stam on – and their only conditions are for us to treat them and create non-secure custody situations for them and to do something that we’ve never done in this state. But for those who solicit prostitutes, for those who then are pimps, and for those who traffic, those offenses now create substantially increased penalties including: on second offenses and for offenses where they are prostituting or attempting to solicit or patronize a minor or anyone who is mentally retarded, very large prison time. There is an attempt to scale it up with each step and each offense. And this creates a real, for the first time, combination statute that gets it exactly what Representative Davis and Representative Hamilton have tried to do, and want to do. You should also know, that there are several other provisions of the bill. There is a provision that creates investigative grand-juries for human trafficking. There is a provision of the bill as well that creates a way to have some additional prison space for these people. And that is also Representative Stam’s provision. And I’ll be glad to answer any questions, but this is a complete rewrite – done by the committee and by the sponsors, and they should be commended – of the entire offense of prostitution in this state and it is one of the best bills we will probably pass this session. I commend it to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I was the only Republican primary sponsor along with my Democratic fellow representatives Hamilton, Mobley, Carney on House Bill 221 that was entitled Safe Harbor/Victims of Human Trafficking. And all of the provisions of House Bill 221 have been included in the bill before you which is Senate Bill 683. I commend the bill to you and hope that you will vote in favor of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute, the Senate Bill 683, as amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

him and one hundred and not a negative house at eighty three, as amended, as his reading without objection will be rendered considerable long enough to discuss it further back if not in question for the houses. the passage of the house may substitute Senate Bill six eighty three, as amended, on its third reading on sale all closing the eyes have it housed in a sensitive position on six eighty three,as amended as necessary reading it will be built being gross and returned to the Senate, the Speaker President Charles Graham, please take your purpose I likely with cortisone and I will not bring the resentment seminary course betting ion, three thirty seven Rosanna Fair cloth estate for burgers by Mister Baker insulated electrical voting on three thirty seven HMM requires burning on three thirty seven Rosanna Kelly Alexander PlayStation purpose of having the chamber of the re- court is voting no on three fifteen Jonah hours writing out on treated prisoner Charles Graham turn off is like a lazy time and again [SPEAKER CHANGES] for next way that in order. they that will be a skeleton session on Monday night as per the Constitution went to have another session within three days skeleton session will be on Thursday and then we will come back for a full session on Monday night, the eighteenth of withdrawal have a in case you want to clear all the revs and avoid BA, but I hope you all have a day in the rest of old time off and time with your family and we're hopeful that the course of the week. some of the issues that are keeping a zero bit longer than some of the worst ability I will be worked out, but I do anticipate the week after next thing a very busy week and potentially a session wagered Friday, potentially presented Jackson please enter purpose of question of the change MMA citizenry [SPEAKER CHANGES] will never be recalled as a crucial that we know they're not cheating in the week, all well represented in Rosetta Jackson will address that question because there is not a development beer Caucus of the of the these espousal love some caucus of their goddesses ruled that as of Friday, tomorrow the numbers are released shaving their beards and anyone who has grown a beard and sympathy to their caucuses asked to join us at the base of the rent stair case just after session for the parting beer,chocolate or mass shavings going over the weekend, resident event was that your purpose statement is for sales press together quit no LCDs all in all all him and he will will will will will will him and all and at ladies and gentlemen, die at the water D is informed that there is a constitutional roll call vote, which is to say we have no option but to have the third reading carried over a day on a build of the chair and

him; I'm free to vote count was the above count was one oh eight one eighty. the best way to fix this because of the physical obligations. we do not come back to until July. VA is to have a session smart are some of us are be bad with your permission of the chair. we just simply say our centre my duties as you intend to stay against the builder against the old Melanie to care the majority of` the chair would prefer today was the notice session tomorrow so we can simply dismiss without no escrow, prostitution, but I would be the only goal be taken up tomorrow. I would expect and told members to be here is there any objection to doing that. the only other if there is any other choice will simply call whole session tomorrow and all members can come to us was building the street runs in a shopping centre purpose must really [SPEAKER CHANGES]. miss Michelle is ascendant male inmates, and lay standing on a sunset to amend the assessment or infrastructure and no money has usually in that it terminates around July or I'm the thirteen and the this meal at least stands it fourteen years, in case somebody wants to use it that my understanding is not a bail bid. they are sending broadening issues that will have to be resisted if it has to go back into the home review of the entire process basement if process is what I'm being told [SPEAKER CHANGES]. that there is one and a half at how we are disposing first cheers to record about was one of six three a.m.. about the only option we really do have is to hold a meeting or hold a session tomorrow or two actually have no session tomorrow is July first is his Monday there will be no other than his viewer interested in this bill are welcome to come tomorrow we will have a session tomorrow there will be only one injury and will only be one out on the counter and it will be this bill. safe as Internet of solicitor purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. thanks again climbed to his lighting a cigarette root. he had looked at him. you know what time will meet. they were were try to sort that out in our extent of atoms that it would be early. I must be in residence, Lloyd, please take your purpose inquiry which is a gentleman. they said is a great would it be a rule call old as well. how about it, and I've been advised that we sixty one. the speak of how not about aggressive individuals, but I'm already here and now somebody can be a lot unlimited time when the combat it. one well and Laser Jet minutes away, referring to read it were, at one right now where we do need to see what members present to satisfy or requirement, we would have a choice of either. I commanding early in the morning at nine a.m. are really early in the morning about twelve fifteen a day share price of Linux 's done. remember you only vote once. how many members would prefer to come back to twelve fifteen eighty eight home to take care of it tonight. all in all all

No peer pressure. All lights off. All who want to come in turn off your lights. Dont want to come back at midnight. We will come back at 9:15. A lot of privilege. 61 people can come back at 12:01. To come back, turn on your lights. Intend of the chair, mojarity of this body. To recess until 9am to come back at 12 am. Ask would how many would stay. Its impossible to get 61 lights on. There will be a 9am session. A lot of members at the center that has left. They would come back they would be fine.

…order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I really do need to know this personally. I have now fully missed my fundraiser which is fine but I would like to go home if we’re not going to meet this evening so I can actually say, “Thank you,” to the host. But I will stay if you need it for a quorum. My question is, “With the lights going up and down, are we calling at midnight and are we going to have a quorum?” [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair was just about to clarify that Representative Glazier. In the opinion of the Chair there were some 63 lights on indicating they were going to come back, 64 including the Chair. The Chair also takes Representative Boles’ point that there are some members off-site who will most likely come back. So, the Chair assumes that we will have quorum at 12:01 AM. Members let’s just do this, before the members lay the chamber… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I cannot see who’s asking to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was wondering if there would be a relaxation of House Rules in regards to attire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll most likely be in gym shorts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection for tomorrow Rule 12H will be suspended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair would ask everyone who doesn’t wish to speak to turn off their lights. Representative Jordan please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask that my vote on Senate Bill 103 be changed to, “No.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman will be recorded as having voted, “No.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Likewise, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hastings will be recorded as having voted, “No.” Representative Torbett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Likewise, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting, “No.” Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have my vote on 103 changed from “Yes” to “No.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Gentleman will be recorded as voting, “No.” Representative Presnell please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 103, voting, “No,” please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady will be recorded as voting, “No.” Representative Horn, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Likewise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting, “No.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] “No,” on 103. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in the opinion of the Chair many votes are changing. It is likely to result in a controversial bill. The Chair has no intention of coming back and having a lengthy debate at 12:01 AM. Please give the message to Representative Glazier we will have Session at 9:00 AM tomorrow morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the House be at ease, all members who do not wish to speak please turn their lights off. You will be recognized in turn. Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, earlier we took up a bill on human trafficking and having Chaired Judiciary there was also a bill that Representative Schaffer and Representative Presnell had sponsored on that same subject and they had done a lot of work on that also to include witnesses before the committee. So I think they should get some credit on that subject too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeill, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to change my vote to “No,” on 103 also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Schaffer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Likewise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Representative Brian Brown, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Likewise, also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, given the proliferation of the “No” votes that are occurring right now, is there any assurance that we’re going to have 61 members present at 9:00 AM? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Representative Lucas, this is probably one of the oddest moments in my time as Speaker, but the Chair had some 103 “Yes” votes before. There have been about maybe 12 votes changed to “No.” So that overnight or people not coming to Session tomorrow could change the outcome but there are still a number of votes who would have to change before I would necessarily presume…

There could be, there could be a motion before we leave tonight to test that ?? of the ?? members present still voting by simply doing a motion to reconsider. And then if the motion to reconsider is done, and then there's a vote taken up or down on the support of the vote or the bill at this time and it were to fail then we could dispose of it tonight. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. Speaker... SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Blust, please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Having voted on the prevailing side of the Senate Bill 103, I move that that vote be reconsidered. SPEAKER CHANGES Members, if you intend to vote on this, please take your seat. Again, members, just by way of explanation, what has occurred here is there's a motion to reconsider the vote. The chair would anticipate that if you take the motion to reconsider the vote, that we would go back to the question and we would go back and test whether or not there is sufficient support for the vote. Yet, the motion, if it fails, then, I probably shouldn't say this, but it would literally render tomorrow night or tomorrow morning's session invalid because we will have disposed of the bill. Then at this time the question before the House is the motion to reconsider the Senate Committee substitute for Senate Bill 103. All in favor of reconsidering the prior vote, vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open a vote. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. Speaker… SPEAKER CHANGES We're in the middle of the vote call. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 74 having voted affirmative and 14 in the negative, the bill is back before us. Representative ?? please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. Speaker, I know I'm tired and it's been a long day but I guess I wanna just ask the question: are we trying to kill the bill? Is that the intent? It's a Senate bill and I think that would be… It's not my bill. I'm only carrying it for the Senate and I understand there are some projects that are in the process of being implemented. I think that would be a really poor thing to do and I'm gonna go ahead and say a little bit further. As we're sitting here trying to negotiate the budget with the Senate, as we are sitting here trying to do tax reform with the Senate. And then on an initial vote of 106 to 3, and just for what reason that we choose not to stay here tonight and accommodate a Senator who is just trying to do the right thing. I'm not gonna call any names, but I'm gonna tell you. Last Monday night, for no reason whatsoever, this bill was removed from the calendar. And it was a game that was being played on another issue that had nothing to do with this bill, this Senator or anything else. It was being used as fodder to get something else. It got called up in there and since Monday night I have been asking to please get the bill back on the calendar. And we finally got it on today. It's not my fault. It's not the Senator's fault. And I just... If it's more important to you to go home tonight, then we'll just bring it back. I gonna ask you not to kill it. That's not a cute thing to do. It's not a… it's not an honorable thing to do. But if you wanna just let it lay, then we'll vote on it again after you go home and have your time off. That's okay. It's just gonna cost a lot of extra money to a lot of extra people that had no part in this game that was being played for no reason. So Mr. Speaker, with that I would just request that you let the bill lay until the 8th day of June...

I will comeback, and will let people that are your constituents that have you been to jail. my thinking is that we chose to. I think Spain ends of what we cost and so is that this practice has demanded that Doctor Bank day of July, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard data is yours. the reason that it was your comments and question it out as it is, ladies and gentlemen of good to say that when the number of people who are now at chamber that perhaps a better way to deliver to provide to change their minds or to potentially care it is ever to July the eighth, the concerns you raised is whether sun setting, effective July one or wondering whether or not we should simply see if we transport to rework furthest the committee said it,we can make a change to it to make the effective date retroactive to July wanting right now it's a when it becomes law, and that I would also present in a message of their support on July the eighth,and we can also take care of the concerned that this would have had a lapse in time and so that's the case would've made more sense to simply refer back to finance [SPEAKER CHANGES] finance things have a way of taking things so this light, it was my sister motion will and all ladies and gentlemen the motion before the house is due no finance on paper, but not all of those that know the lot at eighty four and affirmative and for the negative emotion passes the three referred finance ladies, ladies and gentlemen, the outcome of that load was ninety to come back at twelve a.m. and I need at sessions more so as not all at a resident of Hamilton, please take a purpose. I can like to be recorded. the setting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I almost don't mind taking on race and you are three hundred eight hundred centigrade. they are thankful to place the gentleman may say home on Senate Bill one twenty seven from the GPS German records very notices and announcements. all is the second verse of the Day, Rosa Moores recognized in Mississippi. this is the visit has made out during the reconvene on Monday July first at four o'clock p.m. subject to receipt of messages from the Senate seat from a report referral bills, resolutions,and modifications to the calendar and receipt of conference reports and we will all will and set it at this subject. your receipt of messages, the Senate committee were on board for rural bills,resolutions amount usually countered that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Monday July first– or PL, all in favour say I how was a note has added a house to