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 11, 2013 | Chamber | Session Part 3

Full MP3 Audio File

[0:00:00.0] Senate Bill 112 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute #2 for Senate Bill 112: A bill to be entitled an act to improve and streamline the regulatory process in order to stimulate job creation, to eliminate unnecessary regulation, and to make various other statutory changes. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members before we get started the Chair understands that the members that was intending to object the third reading is no longer intending to do that. So, the only reason the schedule that I mentioned earlier today will be in place so if there is objection to third reading before we complete this bill it is the intent of the Chair to move this bill out of the chamber before we leave this week. The house will come to order Representative Moffett is recognized, Representative Moffett 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 of the house I understand I mean I realized that we have been here for five and an hours I’m equally as tired as you are. Senate Bill 112 is a consensus bill between the house and the Senate. We have been developing this bill over quite sometime I have spoken with Representative Floyd and have agreed to minimize my remarks so we can expedite description of the bill. One thing that you will find on your desk is something I have passed out earlier regarding this bill and essentially what it does is it organizes the presentation of the bill section-by-section in regards to the member of this actually gonna present that section. At the end, we will be considering amendments and also taking questions and if you could direct your questions to the member of the section refers to. So, with that I would like to go ahead and get started. As we travel to state all of us hear that one of the things that is the greatest impediment to creating jobs is burden some regulation so the short side of this bill is to create jobs through regulatory reform. Section 1 simply deals with the description of what a policy is and a little back story there and discovering the history of regulating or creating laws in our state I discovered that in large measure a lot of our agencies have either exempted themselves all or in part of the administrator procedures act and for those of you that are not familiar with the APA that is simply a construct of this body that was created in the early 70s that basically forced rule making to be done in the sunlight. So, therefore, do process could be afforded to everyone the rule would affect and therefore, we had our constituents were clear because we knew our agencies would be making rules in the sunlight and all of those that wanna to be heard could be heard. Well, since that time the number of our agencies through outright direct legislation or sometimes a bud into budget have been able to exempt themselves from actually creating rules in the sunlight but that’s not good public policy and one of the first meetings I had when I accepted the rule as Chairman of regulatory reforms is a little opposition research and I met with a Representative Debra Ross and I was shocked to find out that she and I agreed entirely in regards to this particular part of rule making in our state. She and I agree that the exemptions need to be peeled back that rule making needs to be done in the sunlight but we also need to streamline the rule making process and generally one of the things that we discovered is that a lot of our agencies adopt the policies so they are not exempt to rule making what they do is they adopt the policy that has the same form and effect as a rule essentially putting your liberty or your property at risk if you do not comply with the rule. So, the Section 1 simply explains what a policy is and there is a brief description on Section 1, Section 5 which is on page 6 the reg of Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee to actually study the exemptions so instead of going in and removing the exemptions ___[04:45] I thought it would be prudent if during the interim between the long session and the short session that we actually looked at the exemptions the agencies in to find out why they have the exemption and be able to address these in an appropriate… [0:05:00.4] [End of file…]

?? Section 6, on page 6: ?? prohibits delayed enforcements of ordinances by local governments. And essentially it creates somewhat of a 10 year statute of limitations. Essentially if you have a ?? established in your community, and you have a nonconforming use, and they do not catch that nonconforming use, or enforce that before 10 years expires, then they cannot come in after 10 years and enforce that. Section 8 on page 7: ?? the definition of the term private club contained in the public health law, to include the definition of the term contained in the ABC law. Members what you'll see, is that regulatory reform takes shape in many ways. It could be and outright regulation or rule repeal, it could actually be a clarification of an existing regulation, or it could be a simplification of what we currently have on the books. And as we go through this bill, I believe we'll be touching on all 3 of those areas. Section 9, on page 7: For those of you that were here last term, we had quite a contentious debate regarding a selective vegetation removal regarding outdoor advertising. Section 9a, addresses a, there's a conflict between the DOT, and the outdoor advertising industry in regards to interpretation of that bill from last session. This simply clarifies the selective vegetation removal on on ramps and off ramps. Section 9b, addresses the modernization of existing billboards. There's nothing in this bill that actually allows the creation of any new billboards. This second section 9b, simply says that they can upgrade the billboard from a multi pole billboard, to a monopole. And that's simply what it does. It allows them to maintain their current asset. It allows them to ?? repair the asset, but it allows them to upgrade the pole system from a multi pole to a monopole. There's no digital upgrade allowed with this particular revision. Section 10, on page 8: Simply deals with retention of medical records. This was developed with industry, as well as Department of Health and Human Services, and essentially what it says, is that once a provider goes out of business they must retain the records for 3 years. At that point, those records are either destroyed, or they're turned over to the Department of Health and Human Services for permanent storage. Section 14, on page 12: Deals with Bed and Breakfast. Most folks in this body, probably do not realize that by statute a Bed and Breakfast can only serve breakfast. So this simply amends the statute and allows a Bed and Breakfast to actually serve meals outside of breakfast to their guests. This was actually brought to us by some Bed and Breakfast's that actually live quite a few miles outside of the closest area where other restaurants are. They will not be competing against restaurants, but this does allow them to serve more than breakfast to their current guests. Section 16, on page 15: Again is another common sense provision.

a background check must also take place while the, for that same person. So essentially what we're doing is we're allowing them at that point, if there's a delay in getting the background check done, to go back to a provisional employee status which is going to be highly regulated while the background check is being done. We anticipate that there should be very few of these provisional statuses applied but there is a quirk in the laws that stands right now that if they, on their third year anniversary, they do not have that criminal background check completed they must be terminated. So this allows them to remain gainfully employed during that process. Section 20 on page 19, I dub this as the agricultural right to work section. Essentially it prohibits a contract purchaser of agriculture products from forcing a farmer, someone that they receive these products from, from having to unionize or hire union labor for their, delivery of their product. Section 31 is a severability clause and it simply says that if any part of this particular bill is found unenforceable that it does not affect the other parts of the bill and section 32 is the effective date which basically says it's effective when the bill becomes law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, 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. If you'll follow along with me in your copy of the bill on dashboard or if you've got it printed off. I'm going to begin on section 3. Section 3 deals with, it amends the Administrative Procedures Act provision with relation to fiscal notes. This amendment would streamline the rule-making process by making the review of the fiscal note and the public comment [??] run concurrently rather than consecutively. This is an efficiency in the rule-making process. Section 4 deals, is the exact contents of House Bill 74 which has already passed this chamber previously in this session. Section 7 deals with a prohibition that a local or local zoning or unified development ordinance from differentiating between fraternities and sororities that are approved or recognized by a college or university. It prohibits a designation so that if a fraternity or a sorority should lose their designation by a university that they don't lose their house and the zoning of that house. Section 7, that's 7A and B, 7C deals with the allow that make sure that a student organization that goes before a disciplinary proceeding at an institution can be represented by an attorney or a representative. Section 11 on page 8 is a program evaluation study on licensure. We're looking at potential, if there's any ways to be more efficient in how we license certain professions and to potentially do some consolidation in some licensing boards. Section 12 deals with the Industrial Commission. It amends the law governing the Industrial Commission to exempt the administrator and the deputy commissioners from the state personnel act. There will be some amendments to some of these, this provision specifically. We're going to limit it, I believe Representative Stam's working on an amendment to limit this that this authority for the Chairman of the Commission is limited to July 1st, 2014. And so that's going to be the limitation. It's not a open ended deal. Just to let the new commissioner get in there and make a fair evaluation on how the deputy commissioner's are performing. Every other state employees who's salary is set by the General Assembly is an at will employee so this, that just wanted to make that as a clarification as well, just so you would know that. Section 15 deals with professional employer organizations and just to bring this all home, ADP is an example of a professional employer organization. PEO's are companies that help small businesses by providing outsourced human resources services and help small business make sure they're cost effective and efficient on their payroll tax and benefit services. This, the changes in this section of the bill, section 15 on page 13, it makes, we have consistent, across the

board bond, $100,000 bond. This is consistent with every other state around us that regulates PEO's. It also replaces ambiguous financial qualification standard with a clear requirement that the PEO's net worth has to exceed its net liabilities in order to obtain a license. That's a little more clearer standard. The bill also updates certain requirements that must be included in a contract between a PEO and its client. Additionally, current law permits the insurance commissioner to charge a PEO for an inspection or a cost of an examination even if no violations are found. This bill would limit that to recover the cost of an examination if only violations are found and this is also consistent with our neighboring states. Additionally, this bill removes a reporting requirement that could force a PEO to pay a client's insurance cost if that client, that small business client, chooses not to renew their insurance. There's some ambiguity in the existing statute that could result in that PEO being responsible for that small business insurance lapse. So these changers will improve the licensing and oversight process and make requirements less burdensome and costly for PEO's operating in our state. Section 17 deals with regulating on-demand car service reservations. In recent years, with the proliferation of smart phones and innovative GPS devices and dispatch software, companies have been, begun providing service that allow licensed professional drivers' ability to receive and fulfill on-demand car service reservations. They operate in 20 major cities. This regulation will bring these companies to North Carolina very quickly and they want to do business in some of our metropolitan areas. They would like to operate in North Carolina but they need assurance there will be, there won't prohibitive regulations. So this sets a protective hedge on how these companies can operate. Section 18 deals with electronic notice and workers' compensation cases. This is a consensus provision that was worked out between several insurance companies, the Independent Insurance Agents of North Carolina and the North Carolina Trial Attorneys Group, and so this just deals with being able to have electronic notice and make sure that it's much more efficient on how notification for workers' compensation can, this is an opt-in provision for e-notice and it will help with cost savings and how we do notifications and worker compensation cases. Section 19 deals with veteran hiring preferences. Any private employer that offers the veterans, a veteran hiring preference, this will limit their liability so they can't be sued for discrimination for hiring, having that veterans hiring preference. So that's what this does and I think Representative Moffitt has already addressed the severability, if any portion of the legislation, in section 31, if any portion, then it can be severed from the rest of the legislation and continue on. I believe Representative Brawley would be available next to discuss section 13 on page 9. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the sections of the bill relating to local government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is section 13 beginning on page 9. The first portion of this is section 13.A and B, Prohibit Transportation Impact Mitigation Ordinances. This is the language from a bill that passed earlier to prevent local governments from fining employers for the carbon footprint of their employees. This does not impact ride share programs sponsored by local governments to encourage carpooling. It simply does not allow cities and counties to fine employers when their employees refuse to do ride share or carpooling. Section 13 relates to cities. It clarifies local government preemption and the change is actually on page 10, section 5A. It relates rules that are, or powers that are denied cities and that is the enaction of an ordinance that regulates a field that is also regulated by a state or federal statute and enforced by or a regulation promulgated by an environmental agency and that is more stringent than state or federal statute or regulation. The others are already exist in current law. This is similar to a provision about criminal offenses. This is not, since this isn't a criminal offense but an infraction, but it essentially says if the federal government or the state already regulates an environmental that the cities cannot exceed that. Now, there are several exceptions to that pro

Obition that among the the amorous serious and unforeseen treat there are several thing of force majeure, if the general assembly or congress, if the state budged or federal regulation court, order requires them to enact a stronger regulation they are authorize. There are also two that really make sense for the cities here in North Carolina. If there is a unique geographic, meteorologic or environmental condition, and the city complies with the requirement with Subsection D. And then number 7, and this was particularly brought up by representative Hamilton, I believe. Condition necessary to achieve a discounted flood insurance rate under the national flood insurance program. Now the Section D relates to the exceptions to the exception, it does have to be related to something that's unique, it has to have three quarters vote of the city counsel, and they also have to demonstrate for the environmental agency, that there really is a environmental reason, for the more stringent regulation. Section 13.2 does the same thing for counties that 13.1 with for cities. Section 13.3 is repeal a protests petitions. This is a part of zoning that dates to the 1920s at that time zoning laws where very slight and because of the wide latitude, within a permission, neighbours where given the opportunity to create a need for a super majority. That is less necessary now, because with the granularity of our zoning ordinances, of the cities and so many other things that we do. That regulation is probably not need, is frequently use as a tool, to get lost of concession, run up the cost but I don't know know that any longer contributes to the healthy and safety of the people. Essentially what the protest petition does, it require three quarters majority to rezone property. That is a higher bar than overwriting a governors veto. That is a higher bar than amending the US constitution, and a higher bar than suspending the rules here. So what this would do would basically put zoning decisions back to a majority of the local city counsel, and they can run on there record on that issue, and at this point mister speaker I would like to yield to representative Dixon to continue explanation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon please state your purpose. Representative...Carney did you ?? covering section 26 page thir- page 22 of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I'm sorry was scowling trough this lengthy bill. Thank you mister. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The laddie is recognize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Section 26 is in response to, as you all heard by now, some unfortunate death that have occur in the state and some people being hospitalize for carbon monoxide. So this is just going to require for lodging establishments that carbon monoxide detector shall be install in every enclose space, having a fossil fuel burning heater this is going to applied to all lodging establishments. Which means hotels, motels, tourist towns and other establishments permitted under the stature and it does include the existing facilities, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis please estate your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker, for those of you who are diligently following along, I'm on page 23, to be very brief this a section here section 27 and 28, deal specifically with a threshold farm issue. Specifically with regard to confine cattle, to be very short, if you have confine cattle over the head of a hundred, you are required to have a division over quality permit. If something by chase happens, where you go under that threshold, the current stature is hotel California, where once you get in you can't get back out. This actually provides in the light in regulatory reform, a responsible mechanism, for if you drop bellow a hundred of ?? cattle, to be able to get back underneath the threshold requirement for a division of water quality permit . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin please state your purposes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Section 29 is a agency request is for reclaim

Water and irrigation sent back the use of reclaimed water for irrigation is a good thing. I think this comes from the golf course situation and those of us who play golf know there’s often water where we lose our golf balls, near the green or someplace like that. So this allows the sent-backs to be suspended in some cases but it does not eliminate the exemption of any discharge of reclaimed water to the waters of the state that exceed the permit conditions. The next section, section 20, is a relook at the smoking ban rules that were passed by this Assembly in 2009. There have been some differences of interpretation of the enclosed area. I know in Wilmington they determined that a particular restaurant did not meet that requirement. Up here in the Raleigh Durham area that same restaurant does meet that requirement so this refers the requirement to the [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To wake up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to wake up, and debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the House, this is very simple. It’s just an additional definition relevant to agriculture. Some of our grain dealers have facilities in multiple locations, multiple counties, and it just expands the definition to include the warehouses, that’s not limited to but you know, elevators, equipment, warehouses consisting of one or more warehouse sections, and considered a single delivery point with the capability to receive load-out, weigh, dry or store grain. Many of these facilities have different locations and they just wanted to be sure that those different locations were included in this definition. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on section 25. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is a simple provision that says before someone can contract with the county to haul off their scrap tires, they have to have evidence to show that they have a place to legally dispose them. This will prevent the illegal disposing or dumping of scrap tires. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I didn’t know I had one, until just a second ago, so if you’ll give me a minute, I’ll state my purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will come back to the explanation of section 23 on page 21 in the meantime. Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth and amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt moves to amend the bill on page 2, line 43 by deleting the phrase [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, this amendment is a six page amendment. It’s fairly comprehensive, which is one of the reasons why we pushed the bill from earlier on the today’s calendar to right now. And if you could just patiently work with me as I go through it. Lines 1 and 2, essentially it moves the 3 million dollar threshold for fiscal notes from 3 million down to 1 million. It’s currently 500,000 so we’re actually doubling the threshold right now but it does kind of get us where we need to go. And that’s an agreement we made with the Senate. Lines 5 and 6, essentially that just kind of shows that we have a new section below regarding rules required by federal law. And if you’ll look on lines 15 and 16, it says the commission, referring to the rules review commission, shall not, shall have broad authority to modify the schedule and extend the time for review in appropriate circumstances. And if you look on lines 22 through 24, which is a new section D1, this says rules adopted to conform to or implement federal law shall not expire as provided by this section. The commission shall report annually to the committee on any rules that do not expire pursuant to this subsection. The next is a technical correction to statute. On the next page we have clarifying language regarding local preemption 5A and 5B, basically it is rewording to actually make those areas read more clearly. We have a new section actually a new way to explain number 1 under C, lines 15

Through 17, and basically as you can see it says a serious threat to the public health, safety or welfare that is related to local conditions, and not adequately addressed in state wide statutes and regulations adopted or enforced by an environmental agency. So this is moving to some of the concerns that we've heard in regards to our unique circumstances that we have in each one of our towns or each one of our counties or adjacent communities. So this does allow for that latitude to where the folks locally can adopt ordinances that are pertinent to where they are. On the next page, we [??], the same language appears again on lines 15 through 17 under the county section. On page four, we have some clarifying language regarding the protest petition, and basically it says that if there's currently one underway that even though this becomes law does not invalidate or affect a current protest pending in occurrence to that effective date. On line, excuse me, line ten, page 16 lines 19 through 22, removes a provision from the bill that would essentially would have forced this bill to go to finance. This is one regarding taxis and the new way of actually securing taxis through Uber and a couple other things. So we've taken out the ability for - or we're leaving in the ability for localities to actually charge a tax for that. Line 12 refers to page 17, lines five through eight, by deleting the lines. Line 14 refers to page 21, line 31 by rewriting the line to read that taxicabs, excuse me, causes of action arising on or after that date and as strictly a workers compensation issue to that workers compensation claims would not be affected by this bill coming into law. The next part actually cleans up the carbon monoxide language so that it is effective to existing establishments. And crafting the language itself with the Restaurant Lodging Association we felt comfortable that it would be applicable to existing establishments, but according to some correspondence back and forth with the buildings code council they were not so sure, so they ask us to actually make it apply by mandate and that's what we're doing in this part of the bill. And lastly, on the last page, line 12, we're actually inserting a new section which is a study that we actually passed out of this body last year, and we actually passed it out of the body this year. It's an important study regarding sanitary districts water and sewer authorities at all, and we think it's important that we actually get this study underway. It's sitting over in the Senate so we've actually taken it out of the bill, it's holed up over there and we're sticking it in this bill. I urge adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to publicly thank the bill's sponsor for working with me on portions of this amendment. Two of them I just want to highlight. The local preemption provision which is I believe on page one, line 22. Local ordinances sometimes need to address local conditions that are not covered by state law. And I understand my colleague Representative McElraft gave a good example in the regulatory reform committee involving some barrier [??] towns in our district that had terrible problems with storm water run off. However our state storm water rules aren't written to protect - are written to protect water quality and not deal with these other issues. And I put together some language and am pleasantly surprised to see that they've largely kept it word for word intact in this bill. Don't let that scare you folks. And then the other issue that I was trying to just fix was the concern reading automatic expiration of rules required by federal law. And again I believe while the language is somewhat different than what Ive put forward I believe it addresses the issue that I think really seriously needed to be fixed, and that's at page two, line 15. And so two of my major concerns were addressed by this amendment and I just wanted to urge your adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative

Does the gentleman wish to speak on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For those of you who weren’t in ?? reform, we did have a discussion about these regulations that may not address every different area. The overcoat is in my area. The water tables at two, three feet in some places so to have a rule there that also fits in the mountains might not be pertinent so I thank Representative Moffatt for helping with this and I urge the adoption. Also, it still allows us safeguards from having cities or counties from overstepping their bounds and making some arbitrary decisions by putting some requirements on it. I thank you for creating a balance amendment on that. I urge the adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I stand here about the amendments to Section 26, the carbon monoxide. As many of you may know, we’ve had a tragedy in our district. The three most recent carbon monoxide deaths were in Boone, ??? County and this language is extremely important. May state coders have worked with us on this language and the amendment just makes sure that this addresses current existing establishments so that these monitors can be put in in the rooms where it’s appropriate. I urge for support on the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment offered by Representative Moffatt to the House Committee substitute number 2, for Senate Bill 112. All in favor, vote “Aye”. All opposed, vote “No”. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will ?? machine record the vote. 113 having voted for the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know today, you all, I’ve been really busy handling controversial Senate bills, but I sent them over this non-controversial bill that they just couldn’t get around to acting on so we put it in here. This has to do with a rebuttable presumption that taxi cab drivers are independent contractors. It is on page 21, section 23. It passed through the judiciary committee with only one “No” vote. I think it passed here with only one “No” vote. It has to do with taxi cab drivers are definitely independent contractors and yet, regularly, they end up in court trying, having to prove that they are independent contractors for the purposes of workman’s comp. And so this bill would simply create a rebuttable presumption that they are independent contractors just to hopefully cut down on the amount of times they have to go to court and prove it and win. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question. It’s on the revision for monoxide. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is Representative Jordan. Representative Jordan, does this gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. When is this required for existing facilities? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me see the effective date. I don’t see it offhand. Do you, Representative Carney or Representative Moffatt, happen to know the effective date on 26? Section 26? The existing…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I don’t know that we have an effective date and I am looking over to Representative Moffatt as he… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, you’re getting a lot of members’ participation for a single question. Representative Moffatt may yield for the gentleman’s question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The effective date is actually when this becomes law and talking with the restaurant lodging industry, they wanted to go ahead and move as expeditiously as possible. The reason a building code council asked us to go ahead and go with a mandate is because they would not be able to address this with existing structures for quite some time, but they would be for new structures moving forward. So we’ve actually moved unless we’re told differently here. I am going to be told differently? I yield to Representative Murray. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is set to refresh a record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray may now continue to respond to Representative Queen’s question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Everything Representative Moffatt said was completely accurate, but for the existing hotels that have to implement this, that Section 26B of this will go into effect…

on October 1st , 2013.[speaker changes] Thank you. [speaker changes] Representative Stam, please state your purpose [speaker changes] To offer an amendment. [speaker changes] The gentlemen is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will readthe gentlemen will state the number. [speaker changes] Yes Mr. Speaker if I could do the one that 12ANBC458 the ?? [speaker changes] The clerk will read.[speaker changes] The handwritten one [speaker changes] Representative Stam, this is the handwritten amendment you've sent forth?[speaker changes]Yes. [speaker changes]the clerk will read[speaker changes] 112 Representative bill Stam moves to end the bill on page 25 line 41 by rewriting that line to read [speaker changes] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the amendment.[speaker changes] 12B is somewhat of a controversial section that perhaps is needed for a time but not needed permanently. You want to have deputy commissioners who really are judges to have some job security so that you'll get good people in there and number two they wont worry so much about how they rule whether they can be fired the next day so this amendment would allow the section that's there for a year but then after a year it would revert back to current law.[speaker changes] Mr. Speaker[speaker changes] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. Oh, I'm sorry representative Jackson I did not recognize the gentlemen yielding. Please state your purpose[speaker changes] I have a question for representative Stam [speaker changes] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [speaker changes]I do. [speaker changes] The gentlemen yields.[speaker changes] Representative Stam, so current deputies would lose their SPA protections is that correct?[speaker changes] That's right.[speaker changes] And so why would it be important for future deputies to SPA protections but not important for the current, I believe your word was judges to have these same SPA protections? [speaker changes] This is a compromise that I ran by a bunch of people and I'm trying to minimize the downside and maximize the upside. Representative Jackson, vote for it , please. [speaker changes]Representative Glazier, please state your purpose.[speaker changes]. I'm to speak on the amendment Mr. Speaker[speaker changes]the gentlemen is recognized to debate the amendment[speaker changes] thank you. Although I find myself agreeing with both of the prior people, Representative Jackson I think has highlighted exactly the issue as had Representative Paul much earlier today. Represenative Stam , his amendment, I will be voting for because I do think that its better then whats in the bill but lets understand exactly what we're doing . The hearing officers are being made from non-exempt to exempt and while Representative Murry mentioned this that many and most employees in this kind of capacity are exempt, hearing officers and judges are different. There's a reason why they had been non-exempt and it precisely what Representative Jackson said. It is to provide them with independence and to insulate them from the political pressures that exist on their decisions. I understand the new commissioner is concerned that there may be deputy commissioners who may not in his mind be doing their job and that is an issue but i am not persuaded that allowing all of them to be fired at will is the answer. Nonetheless, because Representative Stam's amendment brokers some in-between ground i'm gonna vote for it but i will also vote for any amendment that seeks to eliminate the provision period for exactly the reasons Representative Jackson said and to protect the independence of the commissioners. I think there remains under current law a way to get rid of those commissioners and I don't think this is the way that we want to do it .Thank you. [speaker changes] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose[speaker changes] To speak on the amendment. [speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment [speaker changes] Mr. Speaker, members of the house, I would urge you to vote no on the amendment to vote red on this amendment and I will tell you why. first of all my dear friend Representative Stam, he and I have rarely taken opposite issuers in the last nine or so years I've been on the floor of this house but today we are very much on opposite sides what the gentlemen tries to do what he wants to do is he wants to eliminate the section as Representative Glazier mentioned in his remarks but he knows he cant do it.

So he knows he can't get the votes to eliminate this section, so what he's trying to do is he's trying to come up with a limitation on it for a year but that cure is worse that whichever side you would want to take. The bottom line is this, and I have been a personnel director in state government, I've been in exempt and non-exempt jobs myself, I've dealt with this area in state government for a number of years, and I had a wife who was a Deputy Commissioner in one of these positions for thirteen years so I know about this. It's the positions are either exempt or not exempt. You don't say, well, this position is going to be exempt for a short period of time and then we're going to make it non-exempt. And not only is that illogical, completely illogical based on what we are doing in state government, it is also really not good for those employees. Because those employees will come up and say 'well, gee for a year I've got to be concerned what my situation is.' It's not really fair.In my view I like the provision as it is in the bill. These positions used to be exempt, they do set policy every day by the decisions that they make and they impose civil penalties for employees. And when someone says that judges, and these folks do have the power of a Superior Court judge within their narrow section of the law, are not subject to politics, that's not true because - with one exception: every other judge District Judge, Superior Court Judges, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, they're all elected. They're all turn limiting. They all have a certain period of time they serve, and if they want to serve further they've got to get elected, and in a few minor cases, reappointed. So that really doesn't wash. But no matter what side of the issue you're on, whether you like the bill as it is or whether you think they ought to stay in a non-exempt status, this amendment is the absolute worst of both worlds and I would urge your defeat. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Beeker, respectfully disagree with my colleague, Representative Dollar. The amendment put forward by Representative Stam, is an improvement over the bill as it's presently worded. It is a fact that Deputy Commissioners go out into the state and they conduct what are judicial functions. Employees that are injured on the job are guaranteed that if they can establish that they have a work related injury they are entitled to receive some benefits. It's the function of the Deputy Commissioner to hear the evidence, take testimony, make rulings on the evidence, make findings of facts in conclusion of law and decide who's right and who's wrong in those disputes. And because that is guaranteed to an employee, the employee is denied the right to sue his employer in a regular court. Where, if you otherwise get injured by someone, you can sure them for negligently injuring you. A simple example of that is an automobile accident. You sue someone for negligence, you go to court, you can have a jury trial, but in worker's comp a decision was made many years ago to do a trade-off. We will deny employees certain types of benefits that they might get in a normal negligence case, but in exchange we won't require them to prove negligence. We just say prove that you were injured on the job. That's what these Deputy Commissioners do. They need not to be pressured by people above them to make certain decisions that don't necessarily relate to the facts that are before them in a hearing. And that's why they need this protection.I agree with Representative Glazier the correct way to do this is to leave them with protection from political influence from above. They should be making decisions on the facts. There is

an appeal from that to the regular court system, ultimately. If somebody thinks they’re on either their interpretation of the law or their understanding of the facts. Representative Stam’s amendment at least destroys the protection and the independence that these judge like deputy commissioners have for only a year, and then it restores it. We ought not to take away their independence at all because of the function that they perform for our employers and employees. But if we’re going to do it, let’s only make the mistake for a year rather permanently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is an interesting amendment, here. What we’re advocating, what Representative Stam, and Representative Black were advocating is if we’ve got a guy that we think will do a good job, but we’re not going to let him do his job. Only for a year. Go out there and do your job, but you can only do it for a year. We don’t want you to go out there and work with any other personnel director like Representative Dollar is talking about in any other industry that we deal with to do their job. What you’re saying here, if you pass this amendment is, you can do your job, but only for a year. After that, we’re not going to allow you to do your job so why have that position if your not going to allow them to do their job. I don’t know of any other industry we tell somebody that. We give them what we give them. A direction to go to, but oh yeah, you can’t do anything with these people. What I’d ask you guys to do is if that’s what you want, if that’s what you want, a chairman or commissioner to do, then vote for this amendment. If you want them to do their job, then don’t vote for the amendment, vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] the question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Stam for the House committee substitute number two for Senate Bill 112. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 29 having voted in the affirmative and 82 in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Duane Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To, after that vote, reluctantly send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman have more than one amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment ARI-83. Representative Duane Hall moves to amend the bill on page 9, lines 12 through 17 by deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I think the last debate pretty well explained what this section of the bill does. One more time, what it does is it makes members of the industrial commission, as everyone has explained, essentially judges. Makes them exempt from the state personnel act. Mean that these commissioners can be fired at will. As most of these members are aware, most were here before this last session and this session. When we passed general statute 126, we gave the governor originally an extra 500 positions that were exempt. Earlier in this session, when the new members, I think we added another thousand that were exempt. But this body also carved out some positions that we felt should remain exempt. Chiefly among those in the statute were hearing offices who conduct hearings, take evidence, enter a decision based on findings of fact, conclusions of law based on statute legal precedence shall be designated as exempt. Members, we made that exception because we didn’t want our judges to be subject to political pressure. What I’m urging the members to do, when they vote for this amendment, is to be consistent with our previous decision and let our judges make rulings without fear of political pressures. I urge you to vote for this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I’d ask that you would oppose this amendment. If you didn’t like Representative Stam’s amendment, evidently, then this one is even worse.

and so I would just ask that you oppose this amendment. This is at the request of the chairman of the Industrial Commission. That's why this section is in here. We need to let him do his job, and make a fair assessment of the folks that are working over there at the Industrial Commission, to make sure that they're operating in the most efficient way. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]And I will vote for the amendment, but Representative Murphy and Dollar, you all got to get your story straight. Which is worse, Representative Dollar said my amendment was the worst. He said that Representative Halls amendment would be much better. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]First to see if Representative Murry might yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Murry, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative. I think everyone kind of understands the gist of it, but what I want to get at is a question relating to section 1265 of the Personnel Act. And, the reason I want to ask is, the last line, 16 and 17, that the area that Representative Halls tried to eliminate, the sentence says, 'Deputies appointed pursuant to this sub-section, shall not be considered hearing officers within the meaning of the personnel system.' And in doing that, the reason I understand the language is there, and I'm going to get, Mr. Speaker, my question in a minute because this is predicate, the reason I understand that language is there is because section 1265D7 says that, 'except as otherwise specifically provided by this section, no employee by whatever title, who's primary duties include the power to conduct hearings, take evidence, enter decision, shall be designated as exempt.' So in order for this to pass muster, you have to eliminate that section, and the way that it appears it's being done, is by simply saying that despite the fact that these people have always been called hearing officers now, they're not. My question is, in doing that, where you're saying the deputies are no longer considered hearing officers, what other affect does that have on what their job is, and what their ability is, and have you explored in that regard, any consequences beyond simply the personnel consequence of what you're saying by no longer calling them hearing officers. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Well, we just heard arguments, Representative Glazier, that they were judges, And so, the duties that they enact on a daily basis are still the same. But what it does, is subject the commissioners to at-will employment, similar to judges. And so, our hearing officers that work for OAH, are separate and district in how they do their job compared to the Industrial Commissioners. Clear statutory guidance on what commissioners can do, evidence and all that. It's statutory law. It's not like the rules of procedure like when we go down to the courthouse, it's very prescribed, and narrowly. That's why you have Worker's Compensation board certified attorneys, because it's, you give up your rights as an injured worker to go under the Worker's Compensation system. And similarly, these hearing officers, I don't think they're hearing officers either, they're more like superior court judges, as been discussed. And so they wouldn't fall under this definition to be subject to at-will employment, similar to the at-will employment that our judges have every election cycle. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Does the gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative. And I understand the argument you just made, and my question, and it's not a set-up question, I'm really asking this because I want to make sure. Even though we disagree, I think, on the amendment, I'm concerned that there's more repercussion. So my question is, has the question been asked, and has it been explored with staff, whether there are any other consequences to no longer calling these folks hearing officers, beyond simply the personnel issue we're discussing. That's my question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The duties of a hearing officer are not defined in the State Personnel Act. They're defined in Chapter 96, or 97, for these commissioners, so that's the duties. This deletes the reference in the State Personnel Act, because the definition of a hearing officer isn't in the State Personnel Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Last question [SPEAKER CHANGES]Does the gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]And the last question, and I think I understand your answer. So, we can't be assured, that by no longer referring to these folks, the commissioners, as hearing officers, it is strictly.

going to be a personnel issue. And their duties, their functions, their responsibilities, their abilities are not changed, even though we are now doing this. That is, Hearing Officer has a definition as relates to their job, Hearing Officer apparently has another definition as it relates to their exempt status. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is--I believe that is correct. I think we're actually communicating now. I think that's exactly where we are, the duties, responsibilities of these deputy commissioners are set out clearly in statute, and this provision is not intended to affect that at all. That would take an amendment to the--I would think the Workers' Compensation statutes in order to change the duties and responsibilities of these deputy commissioners. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question of Representative Murray. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Murray. Actually it's probably a series of questions, but you said the Chair in the Industrial Commission ?? of this right. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Was the subject of this provision in any other bill prior to this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And when was this provision first put in this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] When we--we heard it in Regulatory Reform yesterday at 10 a.m. That was--that's when we discussed it. It was presented to the Regulatory Reform Committee and the Commerce Committee yesterday, twice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman--follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman compared deputy commissioners to Superior Court judges as being--or Superior Court judges being similar to an at-will employee. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would say the election cycle is about as at-will as it gets in an employer/employee relationship. Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the gentleman would agree with me that Superior Court judges or any other type of judge that actually has a specific term, and if he decides against Party A on Tuesday, he can't be fired on Wednesday. Would you agree with me on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And folks that are deputy commissioners have had essentially no term limits, since in many cases they've been on the bench longer than some Superior Court judges. And so their terms have been longer than Superior Court judges, and so we're just giving an ability for someone to have an oversight, and the Chairman of the Industrial Commission is probably the most appropriate person to have that oversight for these deputy commissioners. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Was any debate in yesterday in Commerce or Reg Reform given to the fact that maybe we should do terms so that one specific decision couldn't be the source of being fired the next day? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We did not discuss term limits or any set terms for deputy commissioners. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, could I speak on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I speak on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you, Representative Murray, for yielding to all those questions. It's somewhat sometimes difficult sometimes to make these points in question format. But I would ask the members to vote for this amendment. This is a good amendment. And what we're doing is by passage of 12B is going to create an instance where if the Industrial Commissioner does not agree with an individual decision a deputy commissioner made, they'd be subject to being fired immediately. So every decision is going to be political in nature, because if they, if there's a big company that supports, I don't know, who supported the governor in the last election, and they have a case before, and the deputy commissioner rules against that company, then boom. The Commissioner could fire that deputy commissioner in the next day. I know of no other judge that that happens to in this state. Yes, Superior Court judges, District Court judges, Court of Appeals judges, Supreme Court judges--they do have at-will employment in that they have to run for the next election. But it's a term, it's a term that's four years, eight years, and it gives them the ability to go to the voters and explain their reason for their decisions or reason why they did what they did. And then people make educated decisions. This will allow one person, who's an appointed position--Industrial Commissioner--to just unilaterally, without, with no protections, just fire someone. And this would allow that not only for this year, because Representative Stam's amendment failed, but going forward, so these people will not have--this it not just about cleaning out one or two deputy commissioners that may not be doing their job as Representative Glazier referred to

discreetly as possible on-one then they leave as well as the Visio grade I may have a house bill of rights to identify whole house bill 695 in a way to set the date of several sections and it was said that he really got a real chance a one-to this isn't a lot was at least at claim and that the content per day and ??of the 408, Tuesday night's events and yet not about pointing at how the city of Anaheim has stayed with a bipartisan he's strong bipartisan majority of the 19 -is a time-why it's called have centered on a visitor: 8181 and has a gift of legislation has been the hottest things with ¬students in the text of the constitutional rights and station and the owners if you want is the cases where 1/2 mile, in the arts in his hands up and it happens a proper manner that there are times where the judiciary's force the latest site on the bench and at times that of course, has 27 times CDs of hearing on the other one is as you know we have time for all the nation are reported, the state's women and minorities and that's all it is an automated tax rate us stay out of its highest in the green please person timesaver was done for the statements of the motion making the speaker and author of designing a time before this: a recent studies at the consisting of the record of IE oppose the bill bill last hundreds in the house and in person was their economy time recession of the standard a hostile bid for three reasons to one, I believe it is the only the house are in the nation will simply to one of the jurisdiction of recordings of Tyler our two women will offer considers a witness to be a classic separation of powers are all know if it's ever saw the wants of what will the Chinese edition sentiment was that the consent of the answers all ages is time for a sock has this is an optional style of detective is the sport's post on the seventh was in the Chinese out of all those things stirred marriages and divorces premarital agreements now in offices of matters for a long as the average times in the northwest used as a Jewish settlers the vehicle of India one is all in all some reason of all ??molesters are all these various cultures so below the Spartans on the constitutional ??support is necessary because only send a message and -white house's mistake in part as it may substitute for house bill five points in alder the hall doesn't have the time and ??who was important city, and a different than 3700 of the house as encourages a substitute for house bill five points that I'll go in all existing, has done without objection the rare for all several three and finances for him time masters and send all three of women in the tiles so ????........

Representative Carney moves to amend the bill on page seven line 43, through page eight line 20 by deleting the lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] the lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house. As those of you that where where in the last session recall, we had quite a controversy over bill boards. There was some dependencies, about at the eleventh hour at the end of session. The house passed one version of local control. It when over to the senate they change it, it came back. We thought that we had continue to protect local control over billboard ordnances. An then in fact when it when over to the DOT and the rule making process. We where wrong. I'm just asking you in this last minute hour to take this section out. I think the locals, I know our governor at the time was still in Charlotte, and he was opposed to all of that, and I know allot of you got a lot of grief over it. I sure did. And so I'm just asking if we would take this part out today. there are some good things in this bill. I just don't think that we need going down this road in this session dealing, jet again, with giving more leeway to the industry. They got quite a bit last time. I think is time to just sit back, let it ride. And I ask for your support of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognize to debate the amendment . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I would ask you that you oppose this amendment for two reasons. The language in this bill is strictly clarifying, language in response to the senate bill 182, that passed this body last year. The first section simply resolves and issue between the out door advertising industry and DOT. In regards to selective vegetation cuts along on raps and off ramps. That's it. The second part simply codified into law. North Carolina supreme curt case in 2007, witch was Lamar VS Stanley county. That basically says that out door advertising signs, even if non conforming to local regulation, can continue and be maintain in accordance whit DOT regulations and not local regulations. so what we are basically saying is that the out door advertising industry is being limited by local ordinances to maintain their properties, maintain there assets, maintain their lively hood, by simply taking a multi poll sight. Not increasing the size of the sight but simply replacing the signs multi poll configuration with a mono poll. We are not looking at increasing number of out door advertising sign in our state. we are simply looking at clarifying what local ordinances can do regarding out door advertising, when it come to DOT regulations. And we are also clarifying a miss interpretation of the law, between DOT and the out door advertising industry. So I would urge you to vote NO against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognize to debate the amendment . [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had several members ask me, whether this amendment relates to a massage I send all y'all just little wile ago, it does not. One of my amendment that will be coming out soon addresses that issue. And I believe will be supported by the sponsors. You can say that we are sort of and inadvertent issue. The amendment put forth by representative Carney, basically would strike the billboard provision in this bill and you say what are those billboard provisions. For those who were here two years ago. This billboards position are to some extent all the things that they had to give up as part of the compromise, such as it was, two years ago. If you remember I put forth amendment, those of you were here. That strip out a bunch of the billboards stuff last time it went to conference comity. The billboard industry got 90, 92% and this is to come back and get another 8 to 15%. That's what this bill ting does, I wouldn't for all the respect for

They'll sponsor and appreciate his work with me on a range of different things. This is just the billboard industry wanting more. And the key part of this is the second part 9B. That's what I would call preserve billboards forever. Because 9B relates to both conforming billboards and non-conforming billboards and non-conforming billboards under 9B are going to be able to continue to be able to be put up in whatever way and expanded in as necessary to how billboards have changed over the years. That's really the heart of this thing. I will add just for your information, Representative Carney's amendment strikes the revision, which would be fine by me. I do have an amendment that is more directed at a handful of things, as opposed to the whole provision. I certainly respect Representative Carney for what she's put forward here and I'll probably vote for it as all of you would expect. [Speaker Changes]Representative Cunningham, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] I need to change my vote Mr. Speaker on the previous motion to no. [Speaker Changes] Let it be recorded as having voted no. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. [Speaker Changes] Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, I would like to request to be able to change my vote on Representative Powell's first amendment SV1-12-A3 from yes to no. [Speaker Changes] Let it be recorded as voted no. Representative Moffet please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes]I'd like to speak a second time on the amendment. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is to debate the bill a second time. [Speaker Changes]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, currently in statute, general statute 136-131.1 basically says the following, "No municipality, county, local or regional zoning authority or other political subdivision shall without the payment of just compensation accordance with provisions applicable to the Department of Transportation as provided in the preceding paragraphs of the above section 2,3, and 4 of general statute 136-131 remove or caused to be removed any outdoor advertising adjacent to a highway on the national system, interstate defense highways or a highway on the federal primary highway system for which there is in effect a valid permit issued by the Department of Transportation pursuant to the provisions of Article 11" and there's some additional language there. Essentially what that means is currently in statute is that a properly permitted billboard that is permitted by DoT is a permanent billboard. The clarifying language offered in Section 9 of this bill does not mean that billboards can be permanent. What it means is that they are currently permanent as per statute, but this allows them to maintain their asset and keep their asset in proper shape. You can argue that that proper condition or proper shape can be aesthetically pleasing, for safety reasons, for any number of reasons. There is, and I can tell you, someone in the mountains who appreciates a quality view ?? more than I do. So when I was faced with looking at this particular set of issues regarding this industry, everyone in this chamber should know, it started off as two and a half pages. We walked it back to where you have what you have before you now, which I consider very appropriate, clarifying language to add to statute to preserve the jobs that are currently enjoyed by the outdoor advertising industry, that does not allow for expansion of the outdoor advertising industry by increasing the number of signs. It does not allow them to digitalize their signs. It does not allow them to increase the square footage of their sign. So again, I would ask you to look at this as a property rights issue. We should be protecting the property rights of the citizens of our states, the employers of our states. Again I urge you to vote against the amendment. [Speaker Changes] The question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Carney for the House Committee Substitute of Senate Bill 112. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

The clerk will allot the machine record the vote. 39 having voted in the affirmative, 69 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, what I’d like to do is do the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the gentleman please state the amendment number? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I would like to do the Housekeeping Amendment which is the last one on the dashboard, 88V1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 88V1, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ARI-88V1. Representative McGrady moves to amend the bill on page 11 lines 3 and 4 by rewriting those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Shortly a little while ago I sent around a message. There were a number of people that were pointing out that we may have inadvertently by defining the Department of Transportation as an environmental agency actually done away with all billboard regulations of all type. I don’t think any of us would have wanted to work, wake up tomorrow morning, when city and town and county officials found that out. We worked with Jarod Cohen, Ray Starling, Jeff Hudson, and a bunch, and everybody agreed that the language that I’m putting forward here, just striking, including DOT as an environmental agency will fully deal with this unintended consequences. I believe the sponsors are supportive of the amendment, and I ask your adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady did state the amendment correctly and the support correctly. I would urge the adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the amendment send forth by Representative McGrady for the House Committee Substitute number 2, Senate Bill 112. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allot the machine record the vote. 112 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we’re now in possession of six additional amendments at the Clerk’s desk. Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Representative Floyd, I was wondering whether or not if I made that false statement whether or not you would speak. There are no additional amendments other than those that were before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, could you go on to a different amendment for a second, and let me get, after that, get prepared? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, since the second amendment is more popular than the first amendment, I have a second amendment up there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You want me to read? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Has he read it yet? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Read? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, the gentleman, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ARI-85. Representative Stam moves to amend the bill on page 11 lines 4 and 5 by inserting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. This is another billboard amendment, but hopefully not as controversial. There are a lot of towns, including the town of Apex that had not had billboards for a long time, and this amendment just makes clearer that the local preemption does not preempt an ordinance enacted by a city prior to July 1, or city or county, of this year prohibits placement of new billboards within the jurisdiction of city. In other words, if your city or county has prohibited billboards already, they stay prohibited. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the amendment sponsor would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, would your amendment apply to sign that are reconstructed or those that have to be relocated? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would not think those are new billboards. This is. That’s correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Stam for the House Committee substitute number two for Senate Bill 112. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 103 having voted in the affirmative and 9 in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison moves to amend the bill on page 12, lines 23-24 by deleting the lines: [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this is the section that deals with the protest petitions. I was glad that Representative Brawley gave a little bit of a background description of the process because it didn't get any discussion in yesterday's committee meeting. This is a provision, as he's pointed out, it's been in the state law for about 80 years. I think if we were actually going to deal with this issue we ought to be doing it in a different form than as a provision in an Omnibus Regulatory Reform Bill but that's the fact that it's in this bill so I am asking that we repeal that provision that repeals the protest petition opportunity for the citizens of North Carolina. Some of you may remember that bill in 2009 that restored the protest petition rights to the citizens of Greensboro. They had been exempted from that law since 1970. This was something the citizens have used to negotiate with potential developments near, in their neighborhood, and it gives them a little bit of leverage. I, it's been important because these zoning boards and these boards of adjustments are often full of representatives that the real estate industry, developers, and builders so this just helps even the playing field. When the zoning board makes the decision that the neighborhood disagrees with the neighborhood has an opportunity to gather the signatures, submit a petition to the city, and the city will have to have a super majority to over, to approve, to overturn a zoning decision. So I think this is a really, been a very important tool for neighborhoods. This is something that is super important for my citizens back home in Guilford County. I urge you to support this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to speak in opposition to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In, I don't have experience with Representative Harrison's district. I do have experience in my own where someone will file a zoning petition, will go through several iterations with staff to get to the point where they then have to hold community workshops, notice, bring in people from the community, take comments, and as a rule of thumb no straight re-zonings are acceptable. It has to be conditional district. There will be a series of iterations of that plan before it goes to the planning and zoning board. There will be a joint public hearing with the city council and the planning and zoning board. It will go back to the zoning board for a vote. It will come back to the city council. This is not a trivial process, currently, and there is ample opportunity for citizen input unlike the days when this was created. It made sense in the 20's because of the way zoning was then. It doesn't make sense now. I would just ask you, how many bills have we passed today that received over 90 votes? If we had protest petitions on this floor a protest petition could require us to receive 90 votes in the affirmative before passing any bill. Would that make sense? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have to agree with my colleague across the aisle there. This is a problem that is faced by, once in a while, not that often, but when you have a situation in where only 5% of property owners can file a protest and then it takes 75% to override that protest then you've got maybe one property owner controlling a large piece of property. This amendment needs to be defeated. I ask you to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In an effort to keep us here longer and debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I served seven years on the City Council in Huntersville and I actually think this is an effective tool. We used it quite effectively in Huntersville in a situation where we had five people under the, if someone filed a protest it required four of the five votes instead of three of the five votes. It was not an onerous obstacle to overcome because in zoning issues, typically, they were in 5-0 anyway unless they were controversial. It was effectively

used in Huntersville. It was effectively done and I think it's a tool that protects, I look at it from a private property standpoint. We talk about a one owner who owns five percent of the property, well you're changing the zoning of the piece of property they bought next to. You're changing the use. In essence, that property owner should have a right to have a say in that and by filing a protest petition and the way it's worked I don't find it onerous. It never exacerbated or lengthened the process in Huntersville. It was an effective tool. It very rarely worked but when it did it proved that it was a good program and I would ask for you all to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to speak briefly on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We did have some issues in Greensboro. It is a good amendment, as has already been said, it does allow the people an opportunity to have a voice. We have a voice here they should have a voice back home. I would ask you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wells, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Over the last 25 years I've had a little more experience with this issue than I would have liked. If you want a device that will allow a vocal minority to override majority rule than you'll like this amendment. Protest petitions are in the way. We can have extensive planning, we can go through long processes at the local government level, the professional planners, the politicans decide on land use for an area, you can come in and want to comply with that land use, meet every requirement of the staff and, whether they are extortions or soft sticks, meet with all the requirements of the politicians and still a single land owner can stop a project. And they can stop it not just by moving votes, a protest petition requires a 75% vote of the members of that board whether they are there or not. So members of the council can actually kill a project just by being absent on the night of the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would have to stand with my colleagues Bill, Representative Brawley and Representative Faircloth and say we need to oppose this amendment and actually Representative Faircloth was a little bit wrong. He said 5% of the property owners, it's actually if you own 5% of the border of the property that's being rezoned, 5%. You can now, with this current protest petition, thank you, turn your vote at the city council from a majority to, not a super majority, to an ultra majority. If you got five members on your city council it's going require four of them. If you got nine it's going to require seven. We've all heard how the ultra-conservatives are taking over. This is an ultra majority vote that's required by this. We need to defeat this amendment and take care of this, removing this, repealing this, end this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bryan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This amendment would be costly and hinder development at a time that I don't think we want to do that. I urge you to reject it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Harrison to the House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 112. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 35 having voted affirmative and 76 in the negative. The amendment fails but not nearly by the margin that Representative Stam's amendment failed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady moves to amend the bill on page 7, line 50 by deleting the words: [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment that seeks to amend the provisions that Representative Carney sought to strike and for the most part the, there's the four parts to the amendment. The first and the last one you can fairly well look at and figure out what they do. The one in the middle, basically, just re

Leaves two words, regulate or, which is on, well I don't have the line sixteen of the bill under that section. And then perhaps the most important part of this is the third and it is where you add the word conforming after the word any. You have two types of billboards. You've got conforming billboards, billboards that are completely in conformance with whatever the zoning and everything is in place and you got nonconforming billboards. And nonconforming billboards are certainly fine over time, things change. But the nonconforming billboards, they are typically your problems, the old billboards, and by not allowing a modernization of the nonconforming billboards you are not preserving billboards forever. And my colleague Mister Wells, Representative Wells and I had a long discussion on this, I hope he'll jump into the debate because I think a real estate guy is probably better able to explain why it is we seem to be treating billboards different than we would treat buildings in a time when you're having to replace them. I would urge support of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house a mere few moments ago my colleague Representative McGrady talked about the outdoor advertising coming back, getting a second bite at the Apple for things they did not get in a consensus agreement last session. This amendment essentially goes the exact opposite direction. What I have brought forward to you today is simply clarifying language to settle differences of opinion between the DOT and the outdoor advertising industry regarding on ramps and off ramps. The second part simply codifies the statute, a North Carolina Supreme Court decision. In regards to this amendment, it essentially eviscerates that, goes back to Senate Bill one eighty three, goes back in the statute, and essentially hurts the industry and harms it moreso than current statutes actually do in regards to limiting what it can or cannot do. So Mr. Speaker if I could be recognized for a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the amendment offered by Representative McGrady be lied upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A motion has been made by Representative Moffitt, seconded by Representative Robert Raleigh. The question before the House is the motion to lie upon the table the amendment set forth by Representative McGrady. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the court will open the vote. The clerical machine records the vote, 65 having voted in the affirmative, 45 in the negative. The motion passes, the amendment is tabled. Representative Hall, we have a final amendment. This gentleman wishes to support that amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman ? that amendment, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Printed in the bill ? on page nine, lines thirty seven page twelve line twenty one. By deleting those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, my amendment does one thing, it eliminates section thirteen of this bill. And the reason is, it takes away a lot of local control from our cities. Throughout North Carolina's history our cities always had the ability to work with employers to share cost. I represent the town of Kerry. Kerry is opposed to this bill. One example is we have a new huge company comes in and infrastructure needs requires a new lane for traffic. Possibly a new offramp. The way our laws are now corporations can work with the city and share the cost of all these new needs, but the way this bill is written it's going to say that cities cannot have any ordinances that allow them to do that.

Metlife, Metlife just relocated to Cary. That's one example. We've done it this way in North Carolina forever. We've had no trouble attracting companies to cities like that. If we don't eliminate this section every city in every one of your districts is going to lose their ability to work with employers. So I urge you to vote for this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the amendment offered by Representative Hall be lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion, having been made by Representative Moffitt, seconded by Representative Burr, is to lie upon the table the amendment sent forth by Representative Duane Hall for the House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 112. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 74 having voted in the affirmative, 38 in the negative. The motion passes. The Chair understands there are no other amendments sent forth. The Chair would suggest anyone considering further amendments consult with Representative Floyd. Further discussion, further debate. Representative Presnell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the lady will perhaps wait until we take the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House. I do appreciate the fact that Representative Moffitt and Murry have worked very hard to put changes in this bill that fix some of the problems associated with the original language but I am troubled by the provisions of House Bill 74 that require the automatic review and expiration of our rules and it seems like it would be particularly problematic with our environmental rules and our rules to protect the public health of the citizens of North Carolina. I'm concerned about the vegetation provisions. I'm concerned about the fact that we are repealing the protest petition that has provided such a good tool for citizens of North Carolina. I'm concerned about the local ordinance problem. The city of Greenville has been dealing with flooding and erosion due to storm water and they've got to enact ordinances that are stronger than what's in state law but they're not going to be able to now. There are lots of provisions in this bill that are problematic. I'm, urge you to vote no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 112 on its, as amended, on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 83 having voted in the affirmative, 29 in the negative. The House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 112 as amended has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 112 as amended on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The aye's appear to have it. The aye's do have it. The House Committee Substitute No. 2 for Senate Bill 112 as amended has passed its third reading. The bill will be engrossed and sent in return to the Senate. Representative Alexander, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When this session started I never thought I'd be standing here in this month with the opportunity to let all of you know that my seatmate has attained his half century mark. He's now as old as Lex Luthor and the Lone Ranger. Would you join me in wishing Representative Rodney Moore, who's birthday will be actually tomorrow, a happy birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized, the House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess I just got a little excited but today in Nashville, Tennessee at the National Future Career

and community service leadership of America. McKayla Cooper[??] won a silver in entrepreneurship. Celeste Stiles[??] and Kennedy Forbes[??] won a silver in focus on children. Claire Ledford[??], my granddaughter, and McKayla Wiseman[??] won bronze in chapter service display and I was just very happy. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, the points of personal privilege may have lead you to believe that we were finished with the calendar but we do have three additional bills and the Chair understands that they should be relatively brief and they are a third reading, I mean they are a second reading roll call bills so that those of you who have passion around this may want to consider the debate on third reading. House Bill 1015, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1015, a bill to be entitled an act annexing certain described property to the corporate limits of the city of Bessemer City. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hastings, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Out of respect for Representative Floyd I would appreciate your vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1015 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 voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. House Bill 1015 is passed its second reading, will remain on the calendar. House Bill 569, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 569, a bill to be entitled an act removing certain restrictions on satellite annexations for the village of Foxfire. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen the, I believe this, Representative Boles, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Representative Floyd a question, please. Speak on the amendment. We had a great vote today and he told me not to say anything. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 569 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk, Representative Luebke, does the gentleman wish to be recorded as voting aye? Gentleman will be recorded as voting of, the clerk will let the machine record the vote, 109 having voted in the affirmative, 3 in the negative. House Bill 569 is passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Senate Bill 159, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 159, a bill to be entitled an act to correct general reappraisals resulting in property values that do not comply with the requirements of North Carolina law by setting forth the steps required to bring the general reappraisals into compliance with the applicable property tax mandates. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is word for word for a bill that we passed out of the House that currently resides in the Senate Committee on Rules. I ask for you to vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 159 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 112 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 159 is passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Ladies and gentlemen, now we are finished with the calendar for the day and for the week. The notices and announcements, Representative Fulghum, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My seatmate, the representative from the 76th district, China Grove, is 56 years old today. Happy Birthday Carl. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement and just a brief

Point of privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I really regret, but rather than have us come back tomorrow, 15 minutes after the session adjourns today, tonight, 15 minutes after we adjourn, the Government Committee will need to meet for a short session in Room 544. And again, we have about 7 bills to go through really quickly, and I’d appreciate it everybody attending. Although, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to say in regards to my colleague, Representative Ford's birthday. I’m really surprised he’s 56. I thought he was much older than me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative West, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Report of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just wanted to remind everyone that didn’t hear that former senator, Zeb Alley, passed away today. He was a friend to many of us here in the House. He was a dear friend of mine. I don’t think there was a day went by that he wasn’t in my office. Zeb, a funny story, Zeb only lobbied me one time in my whole career here, and he came in and I told him I couldn’t help him. So Zeb said, “Let’s talk about the mountains.” I just wanted you all to know that Zeb had passed away. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As previously noticed the House Commerce Committee will meet minutes after session. We have two bill, Senate Bill 73 and Senate Bill 614. Room 643, Room 643, I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if Representative Moore would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative. Representative, I know we’re getting ready to end the session, and my question is whether there is going to be any re-referral of bills that we need to know about or prepare for, for next week because session’s obviously coming to a close? It would be nice to know before we leave and adjourn if there are any substantive bills that are being moved and wonder if you would do that on the record please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They probably will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, what the Chair would require is that any re-referral of bills that would be done before, if we adjourn subject to, that they be issued by email no later than 7:30 this evening. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate that notice and would just note would like the opportunity if there are any to state any objections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s okay. The Chair wasn't sure if he had it immediately before we would have had to stood at ease, but it sounds like he does now. So the gentleman will report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There’s several that I know of right now. There may be a couple more after session, but I think the gentleman’s question is anything really substantive. I don’t know if these are deemed substantive. I’ll tell you what we have: House Bill, excuse me, Senate Bill 321. This is the bill concerning the cap to reimbursement of counties. Bill was sent to judiciary. Judiciary is now shut down. Move that bill go to rules. That’s my motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 236, an act to authorize counties to assume responsibility for construction improvement, ownership and acquisition of public school property. Move that bill be removed from the committee on government and referred to the committee on rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised. The gentleman wish to take a vote? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would, and I’d like to explain what the purpose in the motion is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may his motion. The gentleman has made his motion. The gentleman may explain the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks. Mr. Speaker, members of the House, it is customary at this part of the year, in fact, when I was in the minority, I don’t think we ever objected to the former rule’s chairman leaving these bills. This bill has been requested to go to the committee on rules. Don’t know if we’ll take it up or not, but the government committee is shut down now. And the bill could potentially be used for something else, may not be used at all, but it is standard practice to take these bills. Committees are shut down and send them to Rules Committee. There’ll be 3 committees operating next week: Rules, Appropriations, and Finance. So, you know, I personally have no dog in the fight on this bill. I don’t care what happens to it, but it needs to go to the Rules Committee. So, Mr. Speaker, I move the bill be referred. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

and generally Rep. Moore, I wouldn't disagree with you and certainly if the bill is not going anywhere I would fully agree. But because this bill contains controversial provisions that I think were defeated earlier in a House committee, and my concern is that they will rise from the grave in rules in a different form. I think this creates a different problem If there is insurance that those provisions earlier defeated would not come back, I think that's a different story. And if you can give that assurance I certainly would agree. But right now, that is my concern and I think the concern of a number of people on both sides of the aisle. And so unless that concern is met, I would be voting against the re-referral. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to speak on the motion again a second time. Again, I'd remind the gentleman that when his party was in control, this was the kind of motion that when we were in the minority we'd never object to something like this. I've spoken with Rep. Stone who chairs the government committee. And it's the opinion of the government committee that it needs to go on to rules. And they're not planning on taking it up. If the gentleman wants to vote against the bill, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not going to yield. If the gentleman wants to vote against the bill, that's his prerogative. But this is simply moving a bill, and the fact that someone's objecting to such a procedural thing is- I haven't seen it in my ten years here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the House. I would urge you to vote against the motion to re-refer, and many of you who are on government committee know why. The government committee voted today not to give this bill a favorable report. There was a motion to give this bill a favorable report. This is a bill that would give control of school construction to county commissions, ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke, please remain focused primarily on the motion before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, and I am doing so sir. The motion will revive this bill. The bill is now sitting in government committee with an unfavorable report. If the motion is approved then the bill is revivable in the rules committee. And members for that reason I would like us to respect the committee process for all of us, Republican to Democrat alike, respect the committee process and vote no on this motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If all members would yield for a moment, Rep. Luebke I do believe you misspoke, I do not believe the bill received an unfavorable report, I think that it failed to receive a favorable report. And so for the freshman, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I meant to say that the bill did not receive a favorable report and I apologize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the information of the freshmen who may not understand what's going on here, there was a vote apparently in committee today for a bill, and it failed to receive a favorable report. Unless there'd been another motion that acutally moved for it to have an unfavorable report. Which is to say a majority of the members present and a member was so inclined to issue an unfavorable report, then it would have gotten an unfavorable disposition in that committee. That's not what has occurred. What's occurred is they simply failed to get the favorable report, so on any given day if the government committee were meeting again, then that bill could be brought up again. And so the motion by Rep. Moore is to move this bill to rules. I'm not encouraging you to vote one way or the other on the re-referral, I'm just trying to explain to those who are new to the process the matter that's before you. Rep. Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I did want to acknowledge that he misspoke on the fact of it was not an unfavorable, but more importantly, it was a voice vote. It was taken today in the government committee when decision was called, it was a final vote at that point. So it was somewhat controversial in the way it ended, I think this is a good move to Senate on rules, and let Rep. Moore move forward with it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the rules chair a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you remind the body and myself please about if a protest petition, if a bill passes- gets an unfavorable in committee and it's dead, and ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Carney, again, I must explain again. I think the confusion is coming from a comment, it may have been a misstatement on Rep. Luebke's part. This bill did not receive an unfavorable report. It failed to receive a favorable report, which simply means it's lying in the committee. There was no motion for an unfavorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Continue the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yep. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A protest petition, if it's dead in committee, if a bill has

Representatitve: …committee and does it… a protest petition, someone voting in the prevailing side, file my petition, is that correct? Representative: A minority report can be filed if a bill gets an unfavorable report, that is when you can file a minority report. SpeakeR: Representative Carney you may be confusing that with a discharge petition, which would be, in the case of the freshman, which would be by house rule and the ability for any member to have a bill removed from a committee if they are able to get at least 61 members to sign the discharge petition to get it removed. That is not relevant to this particular matter. Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. Representative: To speak on the bill. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to speak on the motion. Representative: Mr. Speaker, I think that in government this morning, I think, in fact, our chair, because the vote was taken and he gave it back to the body. So there was no confusion: he pronounced the vote back to the body that the motion was deleted. I respect him for that and he adjourned the meeting. So it’s not that it was taken illegal or done illegal, or done improper: the vote was taken. Speaker: Representative Holly, please state your purpose. Representative: I have a question Mr. Speaker. Speaker: The lady may state her question. Representative: If we are still having a government committee this evening after this session, can it not come back there? Let’s fix this, I mean, it is close to where we are meeting in a few minutes. Speaker: Representative Holly, whether or not that particular bill would be on the…well there are a number of things, for example, where the government committee meets this evening is at the discretion of the government committee chair. The government committee chair could put it on the calendar. To my knowledge it is not on the calendar at this point. At the same time, the chair could also report it out of that committee. I do not believe they intend to have that happen. To try and have that happen, the lady should get with the chair and determine what their will is. Representative Quain, please state your purpose. Representative: I would like to be recorded as voting aye on senate bill 112. Speaker: The gentleman is voting aye on senate bill 112. Representative Glacier, please state your purpose. Representative: To speak to the motion a second time. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion a second time. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I want to follow Representative Holly’s point because I think that it is the avenue out, but in a slightly different way. If the bill, as I understand it, is still retained in the government committee, it hasn’t been transferred to rules yet, so it seems to me the government committee still has jurisdiction. They are meeting right after session. So it would seem to me that if in fact the government committee feels that it is appropriate to transfer to rules rather than even reconsidering the bill, they simply have to agree to a motion to transfer it to rules. If the government committee doesn’t then it seems to me that is a sense of the committee that needs to be honored. So it seems to me that the meeting that follows is exactly the way to handle this and resolve the controversy. Again, I would move to not object to Representative Moore’s moves, particularly in light of the fact that there is an easy way out by decision of the committee in a few minutes. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Speaker: Representative Glacier, again, I would refer to the government chair. The chair understands that apparently there was a discussion between the chair and the rules to make this motion to begin with. Representative Ford, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the motion. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. Representative: I am on the government committee and today there was a voice vote. It was very close and the vision was called, and the vision was not given. There was confusion at the end of the vote, so I would like to refer it to rules. Speaker: Representative Pimpin, please state your purpose. Representative: To inquire to the chair. Speaker: The gentleman may state his inquiry. Representative: I am not saying that this is going to happen, but if we go back to government tonight, if a member who was on the prevailing side of the vote this morning, were to ask for reconsideration, would that put it back with government or are we just going to be done if we vote on this motion here? Speaker: The house bill it is. Representative Pimpin, unfortunately, because it is a voice vote, there is no recorded record of who was on which side; therefore, for that reason, we believe the motion to reconsider would not be in order. Representative Wilkins

"Please state your purpose" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "To offer a point of information to the speaker" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "The gentleman may make his point; the house will come to order" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "I was in government committee this morning and I would like to note that Representative Warren was chairing Representative Stone was not. Representative Warren made the call as to what he heard with the voice vote. I ask that that be reaffirmed, and he reaffirmed it and adjourned the meeting, thank you sir." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson please state your purpose" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Speak on a motion" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "The gentleman is recognized to debate on a motion" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Thank you mister speaker, members I would just ask you to vote no on this motion, the last fifteen minutes have given you a good idea, if this bill comes back to the floor next week what it's going to be like. We've got the budget, we've got tax reform. We don't need to get on this bill, this bill will take a great amount of time with both the rules committee, and on the house floor. I'd ask you to go ahead and vote no on this motion, lets go ahead and dispose of this bill today." [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Representative Dixon please state your purpose" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Inquire the chair " [SPEAKER CHANGES] "The gentleman may state the inquiry" [SPEAKER CHANGES} "Mister chair, I'm opposed to the county commissioners having this authority so which way do I vote on this motion?" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Again this will be another education moment, if the intent would be to try and prevent consideration of this bill most likely for the rest of this session, then the motion you would vote, against this motion. Which would essentially require to continue to lie on this committee, which will after this meeting, will no longer continue to meet for this rest of the meeting. The chair does not necessarily mean that that would prevent some other action through some other course, but for all intents and purposes that would probably hault this as a vehicle. So voting no would effectively be a no vote for the bill itself. This may be the most interesting discourse I've had in the last three years I've been speaker. Representative Lewis please state your purpose." [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Debate the motion." [SPEAKER CHANGES] "The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion." [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Thank you mister speaker, I know that it is 6:40 at night, I rise on a procedural point that I think this is a very important vote that we are about to take. I understand that there is some controversy with the bill. I just want the members to understand that if it is the rule's chair's intent, for a senate bill to emerge from the rules committee with the content of that bill in it, there are other bills sitting in rules. So I say that to say, yes indeed you can vote no as a protest vote against this motion to move this bill, but please don't think that that solves the concern you're trying to solve. I would ask you to vote with the rules chairman, and because the result; and I hear loud and clear the concern with the bill, but the result that you're trying to get won't be achieved by a no vote on this motion, mister speaker" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Representative Robert Brawley please state your purpose" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Could I ask Representative Lewis a question?" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Representative Lewis does this gentleman yield?" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "I do." [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Gentleman yields." [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Representative Lewis if this bill goes down in defeat on this motion, don't you think this will tell the rules chairman how tough it is to get another bill out with that subject in it?" [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Well Representative Brawley, I would say the past 20 minutes of the wasted part of my life has indicated to everyone in this chamber that theres concern with the content of this bill, I was just trying to say that with a matter of respect, and out of protocol, and out of precedence, I don't see a problem with a re referral of this bill." [SPEAKER CHANGES] "Ladies and gentleman just to further clarify what representative Lewis is saying, I think and something that representative Moore had said earlier, I do not know the intent of the bill. I know that theres some concerns with it and the chair shares some of those concerns. But the fact of the matter is that there are a number of bills lying in rules that could be used as a vehicle for this same purpose. The tradition as .." [END]

it’s been stated by Representative Moore in the past is that moving a bill between committees, particularly to rules, has been on that I think is generally been honored at least in the five years that I’ve been here. Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have another question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may state her inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In committee this morning, by division, Wake County was taken out of the bill, so which bill are we talking about? The original bill or the one at the end? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, I think, to technically clarify what you’re saying. Not by division but by amendment, Wake County was taken out of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And as a result, the bill that currently lies in committee is a bill that does not have Wake County in the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion. Representative Duane Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize, Mr. Speaker, but if I could ask a question of the chairman of that committee please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren or Representative Stone? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Either. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The presiding chairman was Representative Warren. Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Anything to perpetuate this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, Representative Warren. There seems to be a bit of a debate over the last question whether Wake County will be in this new version that completely decides my vote on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am not an authority on it, but my thought is that because the bill did not receive a favorable report that the amendment would not be enrolled into that bill and we would be looking at the original bill as submitted bill this morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, I was about to make the clarification. Because it failed to get a favorable report, apparently the amendment reversed, the chair stands corrected. So, Representative Holley, the bill is in its original form which would include Wake County. Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’m sitting here trying to figure if you have had the bill in committee and one of the first… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ...one of the first votes you took on, it took out a portion of the bill, and then the bill went for a vote, the vote was taken on the bill without what was taken out, wouldn’t it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Representative Michaux. The motion, I believe, that would have been put in the committee was a favorable report for the bill as amended in the committee and I believe the effect of the amendment was to take Wake County out, however, having failed, then the bill that lies in the committee is the bill before it was amended according to the clerk. Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion, very briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a procedural vote. A procedural vote. The Senate Bill was sponsored by one of the full chairs of the Senate appropriations committee. Let’s extend a very basic and fundamental courtesy that’s been extended in this House and the Senate for decades and vote in favor of this very simply, vote green on this very simple procedural motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m a freshman, I don’t know what happened in years past. Most of us are freshman. But at some point we have to say a vote is a vote. We worked very hard in that committee and it was a decisive vote. At some point we have to accept that without games being played, because that’s what is happening. Political games are being played and I say vote against this, whatever we’re voting against. Whatever this is called. Motion, referendum, rules, re-referral. Vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, it’s actually a motion to re-referral. Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I don’t mean to break any protocol that might have existed in the past… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to debate the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, I’d like to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess I was breaking protocol just then. I don’t want to break any protocol or respect for anyone that was held in the past and certainly the number of times we’ve laid things upon the table and called to question certainly...

must be set in some record, so I guess we're about set in protocol, or setting records, or breaking protocol, so I don't know that that would be a reason for us not to follow it. I believe Rule 18 says we can have a motion to reconsider, and the restriction would be in the case of a recorded vote that the person on the prevailant side would have to make the request. so, if the bill is still in the committee, hadn't been reported out, I guess it's still with the committee, I guess that's a question, or. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Hall, the challenge is, because it was not a recorded vote, it was a voice vote. There is no record of someone who voted on the prevailing side, so you that can make that motion reconsider in the opinion of the clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Well, Mr. Speaker, I was just reading what the regulation says, and it appears to say, when a question has been decided, it is in order for any member to move for reconsideration, or on the same, or succeeded legislative date, provided that if the vote by which it was originally decided was taken by recorded vote, then only a member on the prevailing side. [SPEAKER CHANGES]And I think the point there that your making, is that it says recorded, and this vote was not recorded in terms of the members voting. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I think what it says is in the case of a vote that was recorded, then only a member who was on the prevailing side, based on the recorded vote, could make the motion. But, prior to that, it just says a member can make it. I presume we would be on our honor system, not to make the motion unless you were one of the people who voted on the prevailing side. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Hall, the clerk who on 2nd inspection says you are right, and that is within the rules. When I consulted earlier, I think that it was in the mist of other discussions. The clerk has said that her position is that you are correct in you interpretation of the rule. The Chair stands corrected. Therefore, for the freshmen members and the members of the Government Committee, that does mean, that since this matter came up today, if you go to the Government Committee, and someone who voted on the prevailing side, then that person may make a motion to reconsider the vote. Just so you that know the procedural options that are available to the committee. Another option would be for the committee to report it without prejudice to any other committee within the body, and that could even be to rules. The Chair would encourage the Chair of the Government Committee to bring his rules book with him, but either of those 2 motions would be in order at the time that you meet in the Government Committee. But for now, it may be rendered moot, because before us, we have a motion to re-refer, and based on the outcome of this, it may no longer be in that committee when you meet. Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, an inquiry to Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, we try to make all of our committee meetings, and I'm a strong believer that if an action, and I'm just asking for clarity, if a vote is taken in committee, amendment was added to that, the bill was defeated in the committee, and so I'm understanding now that that bill is alive in the committee, with everything that it had in the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Floyd, your point is well taken because the process is somewhat complicated, but in fact the bill was not defeated in committee. For a bill to be technically defeated, or literally defeated in committee it would be because the committee voted for an unfavorable report. In this case, it was an understanding of the Chair that there was a motion for a favorable report had simply failed, which means that bill still lies as a valid bill to be taken up at a later time if the Chair so chooses, and at that time someone could make a motion for an unfavorable report, and if that motion prevails, then the bill would be dead in committee. If someone makes a motion for favorable report, or a motion to re-refer without prejudice, then the disposition would be different. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, thank you for that information. So for now when I make a motion, you know, that how I'm going to approach the motion, and I appreciate those words. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak briefly on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman may debate the motion.

Thank you. Mr Speaker. Sitting here I've got my rules chairman that has made a motion that has traditionally been just a procedural motion that everybody goes through. We have done that. I've got the chairman of the committee over there saying this is what he wishes. I'm looking at the rule book on page 144, Rule 39.2 to say this is well within the rules for us to do this. So my point is, let's go by the rules, let's do what the wishes of the committee chairman wants to do, what the wishes of our rules chairman wants to do, and let's refer this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I would, just as a clarification for everyone, because this is an interesting dialog, that the fact of the matter is, these rules – everybody's statement, including Representative Hall's statement on being able to reconsider the vote, that's why the rules are there. Any rule and any of the motions that are taken today, all of those have been in order and I think that it's clear that the Chair has... when the rules clearly stipulate, the Chair has sided on the advice of the clerk and the rules as they're stated. Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker, can I make a motion to lie the re-referral on the table? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may make a motion to lie upon the table the motion to reconsider – the motion to re-refer.. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I make a motion to lie this upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion having been made by Representative Holley and seconded by Representative Luebke is to lie upon the table the motion to re-refer the bill in question. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [background noise] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 34 having voted in the affirmative and 71 in the negative, the motion fails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the rules chairman be directed to move the previous question on this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This may have been the most accelerated parliamentary procedure session I've ever participated in. Now the previous question does not require a second nor is it debatable. The question before the House is the motion to move the previous question on the motion to re-refer. This is just simply to get back to the motion to re-refer, and to end debate. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.. All members please record. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 83 having voted in the affirmative and 22 in the negative, the main motion is before us. By rule, this is a motion, it does not require a three minute debate. The question before the House is the motion to re-refer... quite honestly at this point I've forgotten the bill number. To re-refer Senate Bill 236 from the Committee on Government to the Committee on Rules. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 71 having voted in the affirmative and 34 in the negative, the bill is re-referred. The motion passes. Representative Moore, do you have any other re-referrals? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well Mr Speaker, everybody was raring to go, we have about 20 bills we could add to the calender tonight, but... [SPEAKER CHANGES] But we won't. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But we won't, thank you. Mr Speaker, I move that, subject to ratification of bills, messages from the Senate committee reports, conference reports, I don't think we have any additional re-referrals. Well, re-referral bills and resolutions, but they would be non-controversial. Modifications to the calender that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on Monday, July 15, 2013 at 7:00 p.m., and members we'd ask for you to note... I would ask, Mr Speaker, that we do adjourn in memory of former Senator Zeb Alley. [RECORDING ENDS]

In memory of former Senator Zeb Alley, Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Samuelson, subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, and modifications to the calendar, that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on Monday, July 12th at 7 p.m. All in favor say aye. That is July 15th. All opposed say no. The ayes have it.