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 17, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The house will come to order, members will please take your seats, visitors will retire from the chamber. The sargent of arms will close the doors, members and guests in the galley are asked to please silence all cellular phones. Prayer this morning will be offered by representative Ruth Samulson. Members and visitors in the galley are asked to stand for the prayer and also to remain standing for the pledge of allegiance, which will be immediately following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members I was originally scheduled to give the prayer on July 2, which happened to be my second son, David's, birthday and he had served here once as an intern, and so I told him as part of my birthday present to him. I was going to do the prayer in his honor and do a prayer from the psalm of David, cause he's a David. So it's not July 2, but he was so pumped about the idea that I decided I'd go ahead and offer that prayer. So if you would please, bow with me as I go through a prayer from the psalm of David. Oh lord you have searched us and you know us. You know when we sit and when we rise. You perceive our thoughts from afar. You discern our going out and our lying down and are familiar with all of our ways. Before a word is on our tongues, you know it completely, oh Lord. You ?? a sin behind and before, for you have laid your hand upon us. Such knowledge is too wonderful for us and too lofty for us to attain. Where can we go from your spirit? Where can we flee from your presence? If we go up to the heavens you are there, if we make our bed in the depths you are there, if we rise on the rings of the dawn, if we set on the far side of the sea. Even there your hand will guide us, your right hand will hold us fast. For you created our inner most being, you knitted us together in our mother's wombs. We praise you because we are fearfully and wonderfully made. Your works are wonderful and we know that full well. Our frames were not hidden from you when we were made in a secret place. When we were woven together in the depths of the Earth your eyes saw our unformed bodies and all the days ordained for us were written in your book before one of them came to be. Search as though God and know our hearts, test us and know our anxious thoughts. See if there is any offensive way in us and lead us in the way everlasting. Amen [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amen. I pledge allegiance to the God of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman from Stanley, representative of ?? is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.Chairman the journal for Tuesday, July the sixteenth, has been examined and found to be correct. I moved that it be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? moves that the journal for July 16th be approved as written. All those in favor will say Aye, Opposed will say no. The Aye's have it and the journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, or papers addressed to the general assembly or the house. Ratification of Bills and Resolutions. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In ?? In senate bill 140 that can increase ?? prosecution of who would ?? or financially ?? disabled or older adults in senate bill 386 and that can provide representation of swine interest in the board of agriculture. Senate bill 455, an act to increase penalties for violations of the see law. House bill 250, an act to provide for enrollment ?? procedures for certain students. House bill 510, an act to provide for the poor ?? bill of rights, under the laws pertaining to control over child placing and child care. House bill 700, an act to make ominous changes to the laws relating to state information and technology governance and the fallen bills due to right ??. House bill 512, an act of ?? made outside of ?? board of trustees of the central Carolina Community College. House bill 538, an act to allow the town of Apex to continue communication with residents and others on other matters pending a ?? judicial decision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, rule 12D is suspended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bills will be noted. Members our introduction to the bills and resolutions, corporal ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules ?? in operation with the house. House resolution 1020 ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill will be calendered ?? to rule 32A for July 18th [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules calendered in operation of the house. House resolution 1021 honor all American cities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be calendared ?? to rule 32A for July 23

Members, upon motion of Representative West from Cherokee County, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Marvel Welch, member of the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians and current member of the State Commission on Indian Affairs. ??, if you could stand and let us please welcome you. In the rear of the chamber. Representative Collins is recognized to send forward the conference report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis, and Setzer, Finance Committee, House Bill. To the President of the Senate, Speaker of the House of Representatives, conferees appointed to resolve to differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 232, a bill to be entitled an act to make technical and other changes to the state health plan for teachers and state employees statutes, as requested by the state health plan. The conferees recommend that the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Apodaca, Chair; Senators Hise, Gunn, and McLaurin. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Representative Collin, Chair; Representatives Setzer and Tine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It will be calendared for tomorrow. Representatives Howard, Lewis, and Setzer recognized to send forward the committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis, and Setzer for the finance committee, House Bill 618, Amend Firearm Restoration Law, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. Also for tomorrow's calendar. Calendar. House Resolution 63. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Resolution 63, a House resolution expressing support for the preservation and defense of the constitutions of the United States and the state of North Carolina. The House resolves. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanley, Representative Burr, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion pertaining today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The member is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I move that House Bill, or excuse me, Senate Bill 337 be removed from today's calendar and recalendared for tomorrow, July 18. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very simple resolution. It doesn't matter which side that you take on the gun issues. The bottom line is we're all here to uphold the Constitution, and this is an amendment letting our U.S. representatives know that our right to bear arms shall not be infringed. That's pretty much the extent of what this does. And ?? of the House a copy of this, if it is approved, will go to each one of our U.S. Congressmen and Senators and letting them know not to infringe upon our rights here in North Carolina. I ask for your approval. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To first ask Representative Speciale two questions and then to speak to the bill please? And Mr. Speaker, it's very hard to hear back here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. I would ask members who are having conversations if you can to take those outside, please. Does the gentleman from Craven yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you, Representative. I have just two questions, and the first is with regard to line 19 of the House Resolution, where it indicated that--19 and 20--where it indicated that the President and Vice President and certain members of Congress have proposed laws and regulations that would have the effect of infringing. Are there specific proposals that this is in trying to encapsulate as ones that you thought or that you think the House wants to send a sense of, that were infringing? Are there specific ones that we can point to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any gun laws coming from

Federal government are in infringement. That's what infringement is, the Constitution doesn't give the Federal government any authority over the gun laws. That's a state issue. So when they're trying to pass laws, and they were, at classifying certain things as assault weapons, or this or that, all of that is an infringement upon our second amendment right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate that, and my follow up, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to state a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Craven yield to a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative. And then in the next paragraph, and I certainly understand several of it, but where you have the word "requiring extreme background checks", what's the difference between an extreme background check and a regular, where do you draw the line? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I'm gonna go back to what I said, anything coming from the Federal government in regard to guns is in my opinion unconstitutional. It's a state issue. However, to me an extreme law regarding background checks would be saying that private sale from one person to another would be extreme, if I want to give something to my brother, that'd be have to run and get a background check first, within the family or whatever. And those were the kind of things they were looking at. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. To speak to the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Cumberland has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, and thank you again Representative for answering the questions. I do not have any opposition to the law set out in Heller or MacDonald on the second amendment, I think the court's been clear even though those opinions have been highly divided, that Americans retain the right under the Constitution to have weapons in their homes and to possess those for purposes of self-defense and that neither the state nor the federal government nor any local government can restrict that. But that is a far cry from what this resolution is asking us to send to Congress. First I think that the paragraph that starts off "Whereas the President and Vice-President" is gratuitous. Aside from the fact that it may include lots of presidents and vice-presidents, but assuming it's aimed at the current administration, if we're trying to simply say that we support the second amendment and urge Congress not to pass legislation that restricts it, although I have some difficulty in that, the way it would be framed, I would vote for that. But that's not what this resolution says. This resolution essentially in those three lines says, as was just stated. "The President and Vice-President and members of Congress", and attacks them for having proposed laws and regulations that infringe on the right. But it doesn't even set out what those laws are, except we now know that it's every law they proposed. No matter what it was, because the sponsor of the resolution believes the Federal government has no role in proposing any laws. And there is nothing, nothing in the second amendment or the second amendment cases that suggests that's the law. In fact, I think the Federal government has the right to do some things and the court has upheld that. They are barred from doing some others, but to pass a resolution that says the Federal government has no right to legislate in this area at all I think would be a shock to a lot of people. And there are certainly huge numbers of firearms laws on the books in the Federal government that protect a lot of people. So I have real problems with the overreach of the resolution. I also have a problem in the second clause, although I appreciate Rep. Speciale's comment, and I tend to agree that there is a line on extreme because some background checks really do serve a critical purpose, and others sound good but they're really not gonna get where we want them to go. But again I think it is probably not the language we would want to use as a body without defining specifically what we think is problematic. So because the lines 18 to 20 in my opinion are, number one, wrong as a matter of law but number two, really attack unnecessarily so an administration and members of Congress. And because I think paragraph, I think begins with line 21, is probably something that should be written a lot tighter. I have real concerns about this resolution and will be voting no for those reasons. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what reason does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Rep. Pittman rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would say that the founding fathers,when they put the second amendment into our United States constitution, had very fresh in their memories the conflict they had recently won to gain our freedom. And they recognized that no matter how great the Constitution is, no matter

…wonderful, a system of government they have given us there might at some future time be people who would be in control of that government who would not have respect for the people’s rights. That’s the very reason the Second Amendment was placed into our Constitution is because some day, and I don’t think it’s going to be in our day, I certainly hope not, but there might be a time when the people might have to fight for their freedom again against government. That’s why the Second Amendment is primarily there. The Second Amendment as far as allowing or disallowing, I think it very clearly disallows the Federal government from interfering in the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It doesn’t make any mention of any kind of exceptions or any way around the fact that the government has no right to infringe on our right to keep and bear arms. That’s what this resolution is about is to remind the Federal government that our Founding Fathers told them very plainly, in the Second Amendment, “You don’t have that right.” We’re just trying to remind Congress of that fact. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Lucas, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You know this resolution places me in a particular quandary. Many of you know that I am a card-carrying NRA member and I firmly believe in Second Amendment rights. I’m an avid hunter. But I do know that certain assault weapons ought to be banned. This is for military. Individuals have no right to have these kinds of weapons. You don’t need these kinds of weapons to hunt. In fact I cringe to see if someone shot 115 times at one innocent animal. That’s ridiculous. Why would you need an assault weapon? To say that the President and the Vice President have expressed interest in banning Second Amendment rights, that ‘s not true. They have made mention of banning assault weapons. Our society ought to feel free. We ought to be a protected society and we don’t need to be protected by individuals with assault weapons. That’s what we have the military for. That’s why we have police departments. Why don’t we trust those who have been trained and hired to protect us? So, this resolution is almost forcing me to vote, “No,” when I fully support Second Amendment rights. So, I’d like to ask the gentleman a question if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re wishing to ask Representative Speciale a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Craven yield to a question from the gentleman from Cumberland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Speciale. Speciale. I hope I was pronouncing that correctly. Would you feel that under the Second Amendment that we should allow anyone who can obtain a license, age 12 or whatever their age is, eligible to get a gun permit, that we ought to allow anybody and everybody to have assault weapons? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can’t answer that question because I don’t know what you mean by “assault weapon.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] AR-15s. The weapons that shoot many, many times more than 10 up to 100 times rounds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t think that’s a question I can answer. I will address the so-called assault weapon here in a moment when I get a chance to speak. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Bumgardner rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you can’t support this resolution, what can you support? You either support the Constitution or you don’t. It says, “A resolution expressing support for the preservation and defense of the Constitution.” What is wrong with that? “The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,” that’s what the Constitution says. I have one here in my pocket I carry everywhere I go, every day. You either believe that or you don’t. If you don’t then stand up and say, “I don’t believe that and I want to get rid of part of it.”

but if you do, then vote for this resolution, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux, rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm glad folks are talking about the Constitution because we seem to have a problem with how we interpret the Constitution and I'm looking at this bill with ?? section 30 Article 1 of the State Constitution and I'm looking at the part where it says that's in this bill "nothing herein shall justify, shall justify, the practice of carrying concealed weapons or prevent the general assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice." [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall, rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair and I heard the question asked if you can't support this you can't support the Constitution and this should be easy for people to do. Well, first of all, we're asked to analyze what we look at. I think Representative Michaux made the major point I wanted to point to that it seems to be we want abide by the North Carolina Constitution when it's convenient and when it's not we want to turn a blind eye and ignore it the necessity of trying to single out individuals in leadership. I note that our resolution there wasn't one passed for us to say that members of the House and the Senate as well as the Governor should abide by our Constitution, Article 30 at Section 1 as Representative Michaux, article 30 section 1 as Representative Michaux referenced it. So I think the idea is a legitimate idea but I think it was politicized by trying to direct it toward the Vice President and the President of the United States specifically named by title and then everyone else named as a part of Congress. So again I think I will be voting against this not because of the overall principles of the constitution that are involved and I have been not only a member of the NRA for several years, but have maintained two memberships and have indulged in both shooting sports and the profession of training people to shoot for the greater part of my life and I don't think this resolution accurately reflects the sense of the people of my district or the sense of right thinking people in the state of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just heard a couple comments about us picking and choosing what we're going to believe, or what we're going to pay attention to in the North Carolina Constitution. This has nothing to do with the North Carolina Constitution. Gun rights, or guns are a state issue, they're not a federal issue. This particular resolution is focused on the federal government, not the state government. We're not turning a blind eye to the North Carolina Constitution. What we're telling our federal elected officials is not to turn a blind eye to the US Constitution. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it's very simple. Shall not be infringed. They say prohibition against the federal government. On line 20 starting on line 20, it says "whereas in the past reasons offered in support of these infringements such as registering guns, banning certain kinds of weapons and accessories, requiring extreme background checks, and restricting conceal carry permits have not been shown by substantial weight of scientific evidence to have been effective in accomplishing the stated objectives of such restrictions". But again, by the federal government, and that's what this thing is, we're counting on congressmen and our senators, when you go to Washington and they start talking about banning our guns that you need to stand strong and say "look we simply don't have the authority to do that". With regard to assault weapons, what is an assault weapon? It's a made up term to describe any type of gun that the left, or the gun control crowd, chooses to make up. The question for me was, from my colleague there, would I think it would be appropriate 12 year olds to have an assault weapon. Of course not. But there is a time in this country where you were over the age of 16 years old you were required to know how to shoot-

...to get a weapon. You are required to be able to handle a weapon. Why? Why was it even put in the Constitution? It was put there so that we can protect ourselves from our government. I keep hearing from people, I hear, "Well, that was different kind of rifles back then, they're talking about muskets." I don't see anything in the Constitution that says anything about muskets. An AR-15 is typically what is described by the opposition as an assault rifle. It is identical to...I'm a retired marine. The rifle that I had on active duty looks just like the AR-15 that I have at home. If you put them side by side, you probably couldn't tell the difference, except for one little detail. The selector level on my rifle, my personal rifle, has safe and semi. On a military rifle that I had, it has a third selection which was automatic, or in the case of the current rifles, three round bursts. Automatic weapons have been illegal in the United States since the 1930's. My rifle, my AR-15, which looks just like my military rifle when I was on active duty, shoots one round per pull of the trigger. Period. It's no different than any hunting rifle, it just looks neat. And because it looks neat, when we start passing these, when the Federal government starts passing these laws, it makes people think that they're actually doing something. They're actually accomplishing something. When in fact, the are accomplishing nothing because there are rifles out there that don't look quite as neat that are just as effective and do exactly the same thing. Again, there is no such thing as an assault rifle. The term has been changed from year to year, from effort to effort by the gun control folks. At one point if it had a pistol grip on it, it was considered an assault rifle, except for this rifle, this rifle and this rifle. It's just ridiculous. There's no commonality there. The bottom line is that even if you don't like guns, even if you oppose it, we are responsible. We were sent up here to uphold the Constitution and the rights of the people. And this is one way to do that by telling those of our folks that are in Washington that we know what our rights are. We've read the Constitution, and we'd like you to read it, too. And we'd like you to actually uphold our rights. And one of those rights clearly stated is that the Federal government has no right to infringe upon or rights to keep and bear arms. I'd ask that you support this resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the resolution's sponsor would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Craven yield to a question from the gentleman from Wake? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Where's the question ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker and thank you, Representative. First of all, a comment. You and I are showing our age. They've actually moved onto M-4's now, even past us, there's still a few of those M-16's out there but they're getting about as rusty as you and I are, I think. In your speech, sir, you mentioned that automatic weapons have been illegal for quite some time. Is it he position of this resolution or is the position that this resolution advocates for that the banning of automatic weapons by the Federal government is too extreme and against the Constitution? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This resolution does not advocate anything. It's saying do not infringe upon our rights. It's not being specific about anything. It's telling them read the Constitution and follow the Constitution is basically what it's trying to tell them. Don't infringe upon our rights. So as far as getting into the specifics about what it can't and can do, you and I both know if we've read the Constitution that the Federal government has no right banning or guns. Regardless of what we may say in public, you and I know it because aren't you a lawyer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield to speak. Not a very good one, but yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to propound an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think if I could speak briefly on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Wake is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, very much, Mr. Speaker. I've been unclear on the purpose of the resolution. If it's to convey to our Federal representatives not to infringe on our constitutional rights, I'm confused on exactly what the position is on what our constitutional rights are. What message are we sending to our legislators in D.C. to protect our rights but we're not telling them what that means? Should they maintain the Federal prohibition on automatic weapons? Or is that something that we're trying to convey with this resolution that we want them to repeal? It's not clear. It seems to me to be a meaningless resolution and I'll be voting against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from...

Representative Pittman rise. Speak a second time on the resolution. The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. I just want to address a few points that have been raised here. The idea of assault weapons is a specious designation which has nothing to do with the function of the weapon as Representative Speciale was pointing out. It's only cosmetics and I guess the appearance of some weapons might frighten some people. But that's not a reason to ban them when they're functionally no different from hunting rifles and whether you want to hunt deer with a so-called assault weapon, an AR-15 or whatever, or not, it's your business. Some people do use them for hunting. My son has one and he will use it to hunt deer. He's not gonna bam, bam, bam, bam. He's gonna fire one shot. Hopefully that will get it done. But the appearance of the weapon has nothing to do with that and shouldn't. Concerning Article 1, Section 30, I did offer an amendment early this year that wasn't heard in committee. That part about not being able to carry concealed weapons is obsolete and ridiculous because we do have a concealed weapon, concealed carry permit system now. So I was gonna just take that one part out of that article and that section because it really shouldn't apply anymore since we do have a system of concealed carry. Addressed to the federal government, this resolution is addressed to the federal government, not to the state and that's a separate question. The feeling that I have, and many people who elected me because of things I've said about this, and people who support me, agree with the statement that I'm gonna make right now. That gun control laws only protect criminals and/or tyrants. The thing about we've got to protect our people. Well, sometimes we can't be there to protect our people. They have the right to protect themselves. And so the right of the people to keep and bear arms must not be infringed and we're reminding our federal government of that fact. I ask you to support the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For that purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Brandon rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I remember this bill coming through committee and I have a lot of respect for Representatives Speciale and Pittman and I admire your passion for this subject. But I think it's very, we have to be very careful when we are doing resolutions in this body and make sure that we keep the integrity of it. Because this resolution, most resolutions that we do, we do it with a big consensus and I think that the word whereas is a word that should have factual statements behind that. And what we have in this resolution is totally opinionated. There's nothing factual about it. It's just your opinion that the government is trying to infringe on that right. Well, there's about half of America who disagrees with that. And so it's a very divided opinion and so when I think, when we use the word whereas and we're going to do a House joint-resolution and you're going to bind me to a resolution, then I think it's very important that we use factual evidence or factual words that go behind it. This resolution does not do that. It comes very short of that and it's really just an opinion of people that feel like the federal government does that. And if the federal government was actually trying to take the rights of people, I think the Supreme Court, which supports most of the things that you talk about, would have done something about it. I think it's a lot of paranoia going along and I think there's a lot of rhetoric going along. But I don't actually think there's any actual factual evidence in this resolution and I think that we have to be very careful because I can make a resolution and say, hey therefore we should not, we should have a resolution saying we shouldn't mean to do anymore Bush tax cuts cause they didn't work. And so I'm sure that every, that's an opinion. And so, we don't want to get into that business in this general assembly where we just make resolutions based off of opinion. I think they should be based off of facts. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover, Representative Davis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The speaker has the floor to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. In listening to the debate, the federal government is involved with gun control. There are federal laws that govern what people can and can not do with guns. So this is an issue that involves the federal government and when I was an assistant United States attorney, I prosecuted people for violating federal gun laws. So I'm just wondering, in once again listening to this debate, if the sponsors might consider a modification, an amendment to Section 1 that states, and opposes any infringement by the federal government of the right of the people of this state to lawfully keep and bear arms.

...arms. And I'm just wondering if that might satisfy some of the concerns that I have heard. Because I don't see how this bill... resolution, excuse me, can prevent. We can ask the federal government to be preventive from regulating the use of guns through federal legislation. And I just offer that if the bills sponsors might want to consider that if that would help to appease those that seem to have objections to the language so far. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of House Resolution 63 on its second reading. So many as favor the adoption of the resolution will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 73 having voted in the affirmative and 35 in the negative, the resolution is adopted and ordered printed. Members upon motion of Representative Brawley, Representative Cotham, and all of the members of the Mecklenberg delegation, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Pat Cotham who is the chair of the Mecklenberg County board of commissioners. Mr. Cotham if you would please stand and let us welcome you. [CLAPPING] And that, of course, that's Tricia's mom back there also. [LAUGHTER] Representatives Howard, Lewis, and Setzer are recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis, and Setzer for the Finance Committee Senate Bill 547, Energy Savings Contracting Amendment favorable as to the House Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to the Senate Committee Substitute Number 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute is placed on the calendar for tomorrow; the original bill is placed on the unfavorable calendar. For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion pertaining to today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, on page two of the calendar, the first bill there, Senate Bill 480, I move that that bill be removed from today's calendar and moved to tomorrow, July 18th. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection? So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then another motion, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 831, Educational Services for Children in PRTFs. I make a motion that that bill be withdrawn from the committee on appropriations and calendared pursuant rule 36 B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection? So ordered. House Bill 998, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 998 a bill to be entitled to enact to a simplified North Carolina tax structure and to reduce individual tax rates. The conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Berger, chair; Senators Apodac and Rabin. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Representative Howard, chair; Representatives Lewis, Moffitt, Setzer, and Szoka. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that the House adopt the Conference Report for House Bill 998. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion is made by the gentleman from Harnett to adopt a report. Further discussion and debate. The gentleman from Harnett is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, yesterday I stood before you and I tried to outline for you why I thought the bill before you, or the conference report before you, was a good bill. I tried to outline for you how North Carolina's current income tax system, which gives us the highest marginal rates in the Southeast, was bad economic policy that punishes success and is a disincentive for folks to move forward. I tried to explain to you that going from 7.75% down to 5.8 and then 5.75 how I believe and still believe that will spur economic growth. I tried to explain to you how the measured reduction in our corporate income tax would make us more competitive with the states that surround us in not only attracting new jobs but in retaining the good jobs that we have. Now I know that there's ...[AUDIO ENDS]

Going to be some debate on this bill today and I look forward to it. I thought I might speak to a few of the points that I think you may hear. First of all, there’s been awful lot of talk about the tax cuts. This is a tax cut bill, this cuts taxes. I want you to know it’s every Republicans dream to be able to say that they cut taxes. And this bill does do that. It does cuts the personal income taxes of every north Carolinian who’s paying taxes. Now someone will make fun of that and say oh those on the lower end of the scale are only getting an 80 dollar break while those making 4 million dollars are getting a huge break. Well, those making the 4 million are paying more in taxes than those making the 20,000. Proportionately the ones making the 20, the ones on the lower end of the scale are getting a higher percentage cut than those on the upper income scale. You’re going to hear things today, that we’ve not protected working families. I pointed out to you that we’ve enhanced the child tax credit from 100 to 125 dollars for those families making 40,000 a year or less. You’re going to hear things today like oh we’re going to gut state revenue. We’re going to gut the ability of the state to grow and to handle its responsibilities in the future. Let me just say for the record to be very clear. Very clear. According to our fiscal staff, this bill produces from the date its signed out through the fiscal year 2017-2018. It provides for revenue growth of 3.2 billion dollars. That is a 15.9% revenue growth over the next 5 years. We believe that because of responsible budgeting we believe in better management in the executive branch. We believe because of the efforts that are going to be forthcoming in Medicaid reform that a growth of 15.9%, a growth in revenue, total revenue of 15.9% or3.2 billion dollars, is going to be adequate to meet the needs of our growing state. You’re going to hear today about various provisions in the bill. I stand ready to try to address those. You’re going to hear one of my personal favorites, is that this isn’t real tax, this isn’t real tax reform. Well let me be clear, we’ve said from the beginning, that this is a continuing process. This is a step in the right direction, this is a step in getting our fiscal house in order. Its a step that we began a biennium ago when we repealed, when we cut the sales tax which even my friends who are going to vote against this bill, will acknowledge is the most regressive tax, we cut the sales tax, and other taxes last year, helping the working families of the state. We’ve gone through and done further reforms. We’ve reformed the workers comp system we’ve reformed the unemployment insurance system I know not everyone agrees with the way that these reforms have been done. But I want to make the point loud and clear that we’ve said all along

That tax reform is a journey. It’s not a destination. It’s a continuing evolving thing just like our economy just like our the people of this state continue to evolve continue to change. This bill provides that there’s many more issues in our tax code that will be reviewed by revenue laws so that we’ll be back before you I believe you in 2014 with an additional round, with an additional step forward towards true tax reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [CROSSTALK] [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham Representative Michaux rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m wondering if you would yield for one small question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Harnett yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry to interrupt you. I don’t normally do this but you keep making a statement that you all cut the tax last year, the sales tax last year. Did not that tax expire? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for bringing that up, Representative Michaux. Yes. When the Democrats were in charged and imposed the terribly regressive sales tax on the families of the state they did so with a sunset. And then they broke their promise by continuing to renew the sunset over and over again which we did not do. Thank you for the [CROSSTALK] [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m up for it if he is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SOUND]. We both up for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How many times did we renew that, that one percent sales tax that you’re talking about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative I can tell you that I know it was imposed in zero three and renewed, we vote on the budget every year. So it would either be six or eight times. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to ask an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you sure of that Representative? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux I’ll be glad to get staff to refer to that, I mean to get you the exact numbers on that. I will just say the time that I know that the sales tax increase was actively discussed was in the budget that Governor Purdue purposed in 2009. That I pretty sure was, was retained. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman gentleman from Harnett continues to have to have the floor do debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. So we’re also gonna hear talk about the impact that the expanded sales tax is going to have. Well, you know, we’ve talked about that before. We’ve asked our staff to tell us what the impact on the average North Carolina family’s going to be. I’ll be happy to distribute the email to you which basically says it’s so small that they don’t really even know how to estimate it. We did not expand this into services. That was a, I think that’s an important part. I think that’s a part that needs to be addressed in the next round of tax reform. But it’s not in this bill. So let’s just, let’s just be clear the expansion of the sales tax base in this bill does include extended warranties and service contracts because those are actually products that are sold alongside with the good that is bought and taxed. It makes sense. Forgive me. I’m trying to recall all of the stuff I learned at the press, the press conference [LAUGH] yesterday. You know the bottom line to me and, and to be, to be fair, we’re going to hear today about the repeal of the earned income tax credit. And I know that it’s not in this bill. I know that it helped some struggling families in this state. But what this bill before you does is that it lowers their tax burden. It lowers the amount of taxes that they have to pay. That’s what a tax bill does. It addresses tax policy. Not really social engineering.

The bottom line and this will conclude my remarks for now. Yes, yes, this bill does contemplate the reduction, the reduction in the increase in revenue over a 5 year period of about 2.4 billion dollars. What this bill cannot – what we cannot reflect on a piece of paper, as you know our staff, economists have to use static models. What we can’t account for on a piece of paper is our belief, our philosophical belief, that better tax policy, that letting everybody keep more money in their pocket creates economic growth and creates opportunities for people to better themselves, to take care of their families, to meet their obligations. We believe it’s a fair and equitable way to finance the needs of the state, The essential services of the state. We believe it accounts for the growth and expanded needs of a growing state. And I would respectfully ask that you support the congress report and let’s move our state forward, let’s take this next important step in tax reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland, representative Pierce rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to ask a question, please [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnet yield to the gentleman from Scotland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Always Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He Yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis you made a statement and i wanted to get it before I forget myself. And if you cut the low – you made a point about 80 dollars would be given to, break to some folks. Let me ask you a question. If they get that cut, will there be other taxes that, in spite of the $80 everyone is throwing around. Would there be other services that would have to be taxed, that would have them still paying more taxes. I’m getting the $80 break in one hand but you’ve got other things that’s gonna be taxed that would really almost double form getting $80 over where without ending up paying $160 in other services and taxes, if you could follow up for me, thank you Mr. Lewis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well thank you for thank you for that inquiry representative. The short answer is that there are additional taxes that are in this bill. We do not believe the impact on the working families in this state will be negative, we believe it will be positive. What you find in this bill, just so we can be clear, that there are things, like electricity which are now subject to state sales tax. Well, what the bill, and what hasn’t been discussed at all on this floor is that, there has always been tax there. There was a smaller amount of sales tax and then there was a hidden franchise tax. So, I’m very proud of the fact that this bill makes the taxation of the state more transparent, more open, easier to understand. And thank you for the chance to Address that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a follow up, Mr. Leader. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to ask an additional question, and does the gentleman from Harnet yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To your point representative Lewis. So in reality, the low wage earners, and in reality, I think you said but I just want to be clear for myself, so it’s a possibility they will end up paying more taxes, will they end up paying more taxes? That’s what I want to be clear on so when I talk to my constituents I can say “well in reality you getting a cut, but in reality you’re paying more taxes. Am I correct on that or is that not true? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond, representative Goodman Rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the house, I find myself in an unusual situation here, to debate a bill on lowering taxes, but

I feel like I need to do it so if I ramble a little bit I hope you will grant me a little bit of latitude. First I want to congratulate Representative Lewis and the people that brought this bill forth for doing a lot of hard work and trying to bring us tax reform. My problem with it is I think they have failed to do that and I understand it. I don't believe that one party can do tax reform. I hear a lot of debate back and forth over here when we complain and say this isn't real tax reform you guys say, "well why didn't you do tax reform when you were in charge?" Well, I don't think you can do it. I think the majority tried to put it out there. There were several Senate proposals and several in the House but when you got out there you just didn't want to take the hit that was required to do real tax reform. I feel like that it would have been better if we had all gotten together, you'd come to some members over on our side and say what are your views about tax reform? What do you think? And gotten everybody together and done a real tax reform plan and then we could have all held hands and jumped off the bridge together and we could have really gotten some real reform done. I don't believe this is real reform. It is a tax cut and I understand that we all want lower business taxes but the fact of the matter is that every small business in North Carolina is going to get a tax increase and it's because we're going to eliminate the $50,000 exemption, the exemption on the first $50,000 in income that small businesses have to pay. So there are, probably the majority of businesses in North Carolina, are going to get a tax increase and I have a problem with that. And I know in the bill that we passed in the last session there were some problems with it where these equity partners in large law firms that were making huge amounts of money were going to get it to but they don't mind giving it up because they're going to get a big break on the other end. So it's not a problem for them. But if you're running a small business in a rural part of North Carolina and your whole business profit is $75-$80,000 a year this is a big numbers. It's going to make a big difference in what you do and also, if you're in rural North Carolina, Representative Lewis you mentioned the earned income tax credit, I know it's not in this bill but removing the earned income tax credit, which was part of the tax policy that was introduced during this session takes about 3 million dollars out of the economy annually and we can't afford that. Our constituents don't have the money that people do, maybe in the triangle, that have some of these higher paying jobs and that little bit of money means a lot to small retailers and businesses that are trying to survive in rural parts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from, lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Samuelson, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask the gentleman a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Richmond yield to the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm empathetic with the concerns about the income, the hit on your county because of the earned income tax credit, but wouldn't, how much would you guess that the lowering of the overall tax rate and raising the exemption amount for everybody also impact your county? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I don't have those numbers but I haven't seen anything yet that impacted our county economically in a positive way that's come out of this legislature. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask a follow-up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have you seen the spreadsheets that show in just about every income bracket they will be paying less income tax with this tax policy? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have seen those spreadsheets. Again, my comment was if we had kept the earned income tax credit there would be about 3 million dollars more in our economy than there is now. That was my point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to continue debating the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Hastings, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Goodman would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Richmond yield to a question from the gentleman from Gaston? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, you've mentioned the exemption that we passed for schedule C filers, I think. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I thought the, any business first $50,000 of income. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does, I believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, as a small business person who's actually on the front lines in the private sector, did you realize that, as a schedule C filer

that those actually flow through our personal returns? [SPEAKER CHANGES] are you talking about a Sub-S filer or C filer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's take for instance to follow up-[SPEAKER CHANGES] Would ask the gentleman to direct the comments to the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry, my apologies. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Gaston wish to further propound his question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I wanted to- What I was refering to is Schedule C filer that we passed tax cuts for through the exemption in the last biennial. And what I was asking you was: Do you realize as a Schedule C, small business owner, that those taxes flow through our personal returns which means that a reduction in the tax rates is going to give us a tax cut? Did you realize that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to respond to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not a tax expert, but I was under the impression that a C corp did not file through your- flow through to your personal taxes- [SPEAKER CHANGES] -follow up- [SPEAKER CHANGES] -I thought that it was a Sub-S that flowed through to your personal tax return, but I could be wrong because I'm not an accountant or tax expert. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman wishes to ask an additional question. Does the gentleman from Richmond yield to an additional question from the gentleman from Gaston? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did I say C corp? I think I said Schedule C filer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, I'm- may I respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, I'm not a tax expert, so I'll defer to your comment for now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But if I may continue, I understand that we need lower taxes on business. I like a lot of things in this bill. I think corporate taxes should be lower. I think that lower marginal tax rates are good economic policy, but generally when you lower marginal rates so that the next dollar you earn doesn't cost you more than the last dollar you earned, generally you eliminate deductions and loopholes to offset it. There was an attempt made there with three, four, five, services that the bill throws out there to that say we did a tax reform bill, but it was just a few things. It was not real tax reform; And my point is: I like lower taxes, I like lower income taxes; but my suggestion is that we throw this bill out, get together with members of both parties, and do a bipartisan tax reform bill that really is true tax reform for North Carolina. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill briefly Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, and I join with the eloquent and well thought out comments of representative Goodman, but I want to start off in much the same way and first, to say thank you to Representative Lewis and Setzer and Mobley, and others who worked on the plan. For a lot of the political reasons Goodman suggested, I think, he is right about why reform in any real way is not happened in this body, and why is still not happening today, but the effort that has been made in this bill has been substantial over a very long period of time. And I agree completely with Representative Lewis on his point that he made, which should be lost on the body that this is a journey and that it is a marathon, not a sprint, to make change. My concern is that the destination the bill takes us to is not going to end up being the destination that lies behind the bills' sponsors plans. So I think it will briefly describe why I'm concerned about that. First I have a real concern that the bill- and this was said yesterday on the floor that there have been experts for a long time in the state and probably all of us in each party have campaigned on this of the need to reform the system built in the 1930s. And we have all also talked about with experts in both parties and most economists talking about what that system change outta look like. This bill encompases a portion of that, but not a bunch of it. But the one thing that got left out is what every one of those study said, including the emerging issues studies and others, was when you do this, you really need to make it revenue neutral. And this is not revenue neutral- not intended to be. And I think that's a given the times and the economy, a huge mistake. Secondly, because of that mistake, and several others I'll highlight, I think it will end up putting in serious jeopardy the state's bond ratings. Which I think is an enormous economic issue for the state. And I think that will happen because overall, I think the majority- that's the farm- want a particular ??

That has traditionally not held out in those states that have tried this theory or empirically, and I'll suggest why in a minute. And because I think that the theory is not sustainable, it provides no long term stability and I think the bonding houses will react to that over time. It is not just as Representative Goodman said. For the most part, this is a tax cut and a tax shift, and not really major reform. I think that the majority started this process to do that, to have reform. But I'm not sure it's fair to say that this is. It is certainly fair to say it is a change in tax policy. It is certainly fair to say that some of what is in here, most of us could agree to. I have since the day I got elected to legislature in 2002, argued for the cut, supported cuts, and voted for cuts, and filed bills with cuts for corporate income tax rates. I'm not one of the most - not on my side of the aisle- something that happened all that often during my tenure. But I think there's good legitimate reason for that and I support that portion of the bill and I particularly support the trigger provisions in the bill. But in order for this theory to work, there has got to be one of two things that happens with the tax change. There has either got to be enough that is given to the middle class and lower class from the cut that they may get, assuming that there is one - and I know that there is this argument over whether it will be eighty dollars to the one side or the other- but assuming, it doesn't matter. There's either got to be enough that's given where it substantially increases the consumption power of the middle class or the lower middle class or the lower economic class to purchase more in order to generate demand and then jobs, or the bill has to shift in the philosophy the other way which would be that the tax cuts at the wealthy end have to be so substantial that there's just no doubt some if it will be used for the creation of additional entrepreneurial and job opportunities. And we don't have that either here. Even though the argument is certainly that it cuts much more that way than the other. But in that sense I think the bill does, in an attempt to create this first step that the majority talks about, doesn't do that. It doesn't do anything but give the tax cut that can generally and for the most part will likely be saved by the people getting it with little additional consumption capacity or job creation capacity. And that is my fear. Because if those things take place differently than the majority feels like might happen, then in the end all we have is a tax cut, a tax shift, and a dramatic reduction in revenue capacity to function the infrastructure needs of the state. And we get not the best of all worlds, we get the worst possible outcome. And I fear that's the outcome that's more likely. In the end, I think Representative Starnes made a point the other day that this bill is of historic proportions. I don't know I agree it's of historic proportions, but it's certainly a significant change and I know it was certainly vetted in a compromised way with the Senate and the Governor, and I'm sad that it wasn't vetted with the public in a more complete way once this proposal came out or with the democratic minority because I think there are parts of this plan that are good. But the overall plan, to me, because the theory ends up being wrong and not one borne out anywhere else that I know of in the country, I fear that in the end the plan will lead to a very different result than what the majority is intending it to do. And because of that, not because of any specific provision, and not without very strong accolades to the creators of a very tough plan, but because I think this is a very wrong decision for the state for all the reasons Representative Goodman said, I'm going to be voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham, Representative Jones, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as I read this, this is the Tax Simplification and Reduction Bill, and we've talked a lot about the tax cut of this bill, if you will, and we've heard people talk about the problems that they see the opponents don't like about the tax reductions or how those are applied. I just

I just start by saying that I think that many of my colleagues here would agree with me that this is what we are sent here to do. When I first ran for this office, people who sent me here were very concerned about the tax policies in the state. Not only by how the taxes were collected but particular how much taxes were being collected. We got here in 2011 we have seen six major tax increases in the past 8 years. And during that time North Carolina has been catapulted to having the top tax burden in our region of the country, in the sixteen states south. Also during that time North Carolina continue to fall in the employment scale. And I believe we have seen North Carolina mired near the bottom of the country when it comes to unemployment for the last 4 years. I wanted to share with you a little story that some of you might be familiar with. This is an analogy if you will this is not my story but this was out together by some folks that probably know a lot more about tax system at least have the credentials better than I did. But I think this puts it in perspective when we hear the continued backlash about the fact that people at the lower end of the scale are not getting as big a tax cut if you will than the people at the higher end. And may be we will talk a little bit about who the people at the higher end really are. But here is the story supposed at every day ten men were to go out to dinner together and the bill for all ten comes to $100. If they pay that bill the way that we pay our taxes, it would go something like this. The first four men are those at the lower end of pay scale and would pay absolutely nothing. The fifth would pay $1, the sixth would pay $3 , the seventh would pay $7, the eighth would pay $12, the ninth would pay $18 and the tenth man or the wealthiest man if you will would pay $59. So that’s what they decided to do. One day the restaurant owner decided that he would offer them a discount or tax cut if you will. Because they were such good customers their bill would be lowered by $20 and the total bill would come to only 80. The problem was with how would they divide the discount. You see if everyone got $2 back well half the men would actually be paid money in order to eat dinner. . So the restaurant owner suggested that perhaps it would be fair to reduce each one’s bill by a percentage and still maintain this progressive system of payment. So the fifth man like the first four would pay nothing, 100% saving. The sixth would pay $2 instead of $3 so he would save 33%., the seventh would pay would be paying $5 instead of $7 saving 28%, the eight would pay 9 instead of 12 saving 25%, the ninth would pay 14 instead of 18 or 22% savings and the 10th would pay 49 instead of 59 which would be a 16% saving. So each of the six payers were better off than before and the first four would continue to eat for free. But once they were outside the restaurant, the men started to compare their savings. The sixth man declared well I only got $1 out of the $20 that we are saving. He pointed to the 10th man but he got $10. That’s right said the fifth man I only saved a dollar too. But it’s unfair that he got ten times as much savings as I did. That’s true shouted the seventh man why should I only get $2 back. He got $10 back. The wealthy get all the breaks. Wait a minute yelled the first four man in unison, we didn’t get anything at all. This just explains the point. So then the nine men surrounded the 10th man and beat him up. So the next night the 10th man didn’t show up for dinner and the nine sat down and had their dinner without him and when it came time to pay the bill they `discovered one important thing. Between them they did not have enough money to pay even half the bill. So what’s the moral of the story. What’s the point. Well some of the comments that we hear around here, I understand the rhetoric . I understand the need to demonize the people at the top if you will. These people at the top

By the way, most of these, or may of these are businesses. These are the people that create the jobs in the state. The much needed jobs in this state, the state the jobs that we’ve been losing as we’ve catapulted to the top of the tax burden in our region. So I would suggest and I will support this bill and I would suggest that you do as well. And I think that one of the effects we will see that, as we bring North Carolina more competitive with our neighbors in the way that we do personal income tax and the way that we do corporate income tax, and the way that we treat different kinds of taxes. I believe we will see that we will bring our state into a better competitive environment. One that will attract more businesses, not only to come here, but to stay here and to grow and not to cut back. Because ladies and gentlemen, businesses will look to locate, and they will look to stay and they will look to operate in those places where they can thrive and make money. So I suggest that this is a good bill. As Representative Lewis said, it is a journey and not a destination. I think this is a good step. I think it’s a step we should take today and I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the Lady from Wake, Representative Avila, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen. Representative Lewis a few minutes ago said we cannot put on paper what we feel like the outcome is going to be for the enactment of this tax reform package. I would suggest that each of you go to your favorite web search engine and enter economy following tax cuts and it will show you repeatedly in America’s economical, economic history what happens when government cuts tax rates. We use practice in criminal law which says the higher, we put the penalty, the less inclined people are to commit the crime. The same holds when you raise taxes. The higher they get the less inclined people are to pay them. What happens is we find loopsholes. We find exceptions. We find exemptions. And we do not collect the money that we as a government, if you want to put the word entitled to, based on the production of the citizens of this state, because people find ways around paying it when it gets too onerous. When we bring it down to a reasonable level, which reasonable is that we determine how much government we should give the people and they won’t, then we should determine how much we should pay for it. Raising it, you’re going to get less taxes. Lowering it, you’re going to get more. Study history. Thank you. Please support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Lewis will yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the gentlemen from Harnett yield to the lady from Surry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, I just wanted to sort of ask you a question because I get confused on what the argument’s about. Under this tax bill, aren’t all individual citizens paying the same percentage of their income and getting exactly the same exemptions as everybody else? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, that was the intent to make the rates the same as opposed to one that would tax more or penalize success. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could do a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady wishes to ask an additional question. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And doesn’t this help put corporations in the same tax rate almost as citizens? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, yes it does come very very close to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentlemen from Guilford, Representative Blust rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and Members of the House. John Marshall who was an American Statesmen, a member of Congress, fought in the Armed Services and in the Revolution . Secretary of State, Envoy to I think Great Britain, fourth Supreme Court Justice of the United States who developed much of our early constitutional law, once wrote in a case I think it was McCulloch vs. Maryland, the power to tax is the power to destroy. The power to tax is the power to destroy. Taxation can destroy by.

Representative: Interfering with all of the millions of choices that go on in an economy like ours because it changes the incentives to save, work and invest, and do all the positive things we want. So, this incredible power should be exercised very sparingly, very reluctantly, and with great sobriety. It has not always been that way in this country and in this state. What we are doing here affects all of the citizens of the state because the state can actually come – if the taxes we impose on the citizens are not paid, the full force of the law can come down on the citizen and the sheriff can ultimately come and take his or her property away. So this is something we have to use very good judgment in doing. There is a lot of economic history that would indicate that when levels of taxation get too high, we do not get a lot of the things we want: the savings, the investment, the economic activity. That is what this bill was designed to do: it was designed to simplify taxes, it was designed to lower the burden so that we will get overall economic growth, and ultimately, we hope, even more tax revenue because the economy will grow more. There is significant economic history, despite a handout I saw today, if you trace the history of the income tax, you saw this play out – you saw it play out in the 20’s. The income tax was new in the teens to help finance World War I and grew to incredible marginal rates, then were lowered in the 20’s: you had the roaring 20’s. They came to an end with a huge tax increase called the [xx] tariff. In world war II, the rates got high again; and in post world war II, we saw the same thing as the rates came down, economic activity increased. We saw it again in 1983, with the ’81 tax cuts, when they finally went into full effect, you had an economic boom that lasted 20 years. So there is economic history and I would just site to the minority some quotes from President John F. Kennedy. In 1963, he instituted what is called the Kennedy round of tax cuts which led to the economic strength we saw in the 1960’s. It is a paradoxical truth that taxes are too high, and tax revenue too low, and the soundest way to raise revenues is to cut rates… Speaker: [interrupting] For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond, Representative Goodman, rise? Representative: To ask a question please. Representative: I yield. Speaker: He yields. Representative: Representative Bluss, can you tell me what the top tax rate was when President Kennedy recommended those tax reductions? Representative: I believe the top rate at that time was 90 and went down to 70, and then President Reagan lowered the top rate from 70 down to 50 in 1983, and then in the ’86 act it went down from 50 down to 28%. Each time we saw a corresponding increase in economic activity that more than made up for the tax cut. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Speaker: The gentleman from Gilford continues to have the floor to continue to debate the bill. Representative: There is another point, I think, that really needs to be made here listening to all the rhetoric – and we heard less of it today than yesterday. We always here income tax cuts as income tax cuts for the wealthy. I would point out to the body that an income tax is not a wealth tax. There is a wealth tax, to a degree, in our municipalities and counties, i.e. the property tax. The federal tax on estates, which some call the death tax, is a wealth tax because you add up the value of your assets at date of death minus liabilities and apply a tax rate to that. So that is a tax on wealth. Income is taxed annually at whatever someone makes in income, defined in section 61 of the tax code minus all the legal exemptions, deductions and credits, and that is taxed, but that tax, that gross income on that tax, is not necessarily indicative of

...it can be, but not necessarily. There are high income individuals who are deeply in debt and would owe zero on the estate tax if they were to die. So it's not correct to call it a tax on the "wealthy". And I know this issue can be demagogue to death and I'm sure it will be attempted to be, but the big reason for doing what we're doing is exactly what President Kennedy said and I could read you even more quotes. We're trying to stimulate economic growth. We as a legislature and a state are faced with an enormous problem over the next several years and the problem is basically that politicians in the past have promised from government a whole lot more than can be delivered at present trajectories. And one of the ways, other than restraining spending, which has to be done, is to create economic growth. We are not going to meet the needs of the state if we don't somehow get economic growth and increase jobs, and this is designed to attempt to do that based upon experience in the past, historical experience. I think others have made the point that we are competing with other states for some of this industry and this growth and these plants. and it is just necessary to bring our rates in line and make them competitive with negative states. But we hope that this is going to work out and help all the people in the state. One thing President Kennedy is, "A rising tide raises all boats," and that's what we're trying to do. I'm sure we'll get criticized in some quarters for it, we'll get called bad names and ascribed bad motives, but there aren't bad motives behind this. There aren't bad motives behind this. We are trying to help all the people in the State and I heard your adoption of the confidence report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond, Representative Goodman rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to just make a couple really quick points. One is that when President Kennedy and President Reagan lowered rates, rates were a lot higher. There is a place where you hit a point of diminishing returns. And second I would just like to point out that when President Reagan lowered rates to the 28 % I think was his top rate, they eliminated a lot of loopholes and a lot of places where people hide money. But even then he had to go back and pass the Budget Reconciliation Act of 1986, and had to go back and raise taxes. Actually I think he did it five times to make his numbers work out so I just wanted to make that point. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what reason does the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was wondering if the gentleman from Richmond would yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman from Richmond yield to a question from the gentleman from Harnett? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I wanted to ask, in your earlier remarks, you indicate that in your belief this was not tax reformed. And in the remarks that you just made you spoke to loopholes, or what we would agree would be called special tax treatment. Would it be fair to say that the elimination of special tax treatments would be tax reformed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It would but you trade off lower tax rates for that. I mean you don't want anybody's tax rates to go up. That's one of the things I've heard in here today that indicates that people over here want to raise people's taxes. We don't. I want to be able to have lower taxes but I want it to be done in a more comprehensive way instead of just.. You know there have been a lot of attempts here in this session to have tax reform and a lot of things that trial ??? have thrown out there. When they got attacked they were brought back down. So I just think we could do this better. That's my only point that I would like to make. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask him one additional question, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. So to be clear that I understood what you said, I believe I understood you to say..

That there is often a trade off between special tax treatments and the ability to impact rates. And I agree with you on that. Would you agree with me that this bill repealing more than four dozen special tax treatments does amount to a positive step in tax reform? [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I reply? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may. The gentleman has the floor to respond to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, I do agree as far as it goes and I appreciate what you said about this being a process. And I hope that it is a process. What I am asking for is some input from people on this side of the aisle to help get to where we really need to go. My fear is that this just doesn't get it done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir and thank you Mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the committee report for House Bill 998 on it's third reading. So many as favor the adoption of the report will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 77 having voted in the affirmative and 36 in the negative. The conference report for House Bill 998, on it's third reading, is adopted and the Senate will be so notified. Members, on behalf of all the members of the House, the chair extends the courtesies of the gallery to the children of Representative Dennis Riddell. They are Kelsie, Lindsay, Allie, Adam, Nathan, Brandon and Reagan. I would ask all of you to please stand so that we can properly welcome them. Representative Riddell, I believe you could fully staff our pages for the week each week there. Members in consultation both with the Majority Leader and the Minority Leader. We are going to go into recess until 1:15. That will allow members to have a proper lunch. I know if you have already had tomato sandwiches and so forth. But it does appear that the next few bills could take awhile and it's session may go on. So with that being said, the House is going to be in recess until 1:15. The House will come to order. For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have two motions, Mister Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First, House Bill 392 move that the rereferral to rules be stricken and that the bill be placed on tomorrow's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker. Mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then on page two again, earlier today we removed Senate Bill 480 from the calendar. That is a roll call bill and in order to finish that up by tomorrow, we do need to have second reading. So I would move that Senate Bill 480 be placed on today's calendar, removed from tomorrow's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And members, 480 is on the sheet, is on your regular calendar. It's at the top of page two. Is there objection to that? Hearing none. So ordered. For what purpose does the gentleman fromDurham, Representative Luebke rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to ask about the bill that Representative Burr referred first. The title of the bill, I believe, is House Bill 392. If we could hear the title. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The representative from Stanly will please restate that bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's Warrant Status/Drug Screen Public Assistance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion to add several bills to the calendar, Mister Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will state his motions. Just go through each bill with the bill number and the short title please sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You got it. The first bill I move to add to today's calendar is House Bill 831. That's the Education Services For Children In PRTFs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The next bill, Mister Chairman, is House Bill 618. That's Amend Firearm Restoration Laws. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The next is Senate Bill 379, Expansion Of Natural Gas And Propane For Agriculture [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the next is a conference report for House

Bill 232. I can read the long title is: bill to make technical and other changes to the state health plan for teachers and state employees statutes, as requested by the state health plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? bill to be added to today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Adams, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the gentleman could tell me again the title for 831? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 831? The title of that bill is Educational Services for Children in PRTFs, and by way of further explanation, Representative Adams, that bill had been sent to Appropriations and was simply withdrawn from Appropriations with the consent of Representative Dollar. House Bill 614. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, a conferee is appointed to resolve the difference between Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 614, a bill entitled an act to provide that agricultural and forestry operations are not nuisances under certain circumstances and to provide for the award of costs and attorneys' fees to a prevailing defendant. The conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Jackson, Chair; Senators Brock, Barefoot, and Clodfelter. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Representative Ramsey, Chair; Representatives Tim Moore and Larry Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Buncombe, Representative Ramsey, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to make a motion and speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state a motion and to debate said motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I would make a motion that we adopt the conference report for the proposed Conference Committee Substitute for House Bill 614. This is a bill that passed the House on a 112-to-1 vote. It passed the Senate on a 47-to-1 vote. There was some distinctions regarding attorney fee languages and a few other things in this bill that we tried to work out in conference. I appreciate all the work of the conferees. We contend it's a good bill and stand to answer any questions members may have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Johnston, Representative Daughtry, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be excused from voting pursuant to rule. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be noted as excused from voting on this particular bill. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is adoption of the conference report for House Bill 614. ?? in favor of adoption of the report will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 104 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, the conference report for House Bill 614 is adopted and the Senate will be so notified. House Bill 786. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute Number 2 for House Bill 786, a bill entitled an act to require the Department of Public Safety to study measures for addressing the problem of illegal immigration in this state; and to clarify which employers are subject to the state's e-verify laws. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan, Representative Warren, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, this is the same bill we had yesterday and we passed on the second reading with a very bipartisan vote of 84 to 29. I ask for your support today on the third reading. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Onslow, Representative Cleveland, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To put forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth his amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland moves to amend the bill on page 12, lines 38 through 48 by deleting the lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment will take the changes that were made to the e-verify portion in this bill, from the 2011 bill, and put them back to what they were in 2011. There is no need to change

this year what we did in 2011. I'd appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion for the debate on the amendment for what purpose does the gentlemen from Rowan Representative Warren rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ladies and Gentlemen the part of the bill that Representative Cleveland's proposing we delete from the bill is a provision we included to supersede the exemption for seasonal workers in the e-verify bill passed last session because it's not in compliance with the MOU or the e-verify program. We based that definition in the current PCS before us on the definition straight out of the department of labor's H2A program regarding temporary agricultural workers and I want to read you part of that because it is almost verbatim what we have in the bill that he's proposing to delete. It says employment is of a seasonal nature where it is tied to a certain time of the year by an event or pattern such as a short annual growing cycle and requires labor levels above what is necessary for ongoing operations. Employment is of a temporary nature when the employer's need to fill the position with a temporary worker will, except in extraordinary circumstances, last no longer than a year. Yesterday when we presented the bill that's what we had in there, that it would be less than a year. When Representative Brown submitted the amendment to turn this to a study bill we also cut this back to 10 months. The reason for that is that particular definition was selected to accommodate a various consecutive harvest crop cycles that require temporary employment but are protracted over a cyclical time. So we thought 10 months was adequate even though the H2A definition actually allows as it says here in extraordinary circumstances would allow to go beyond a year we cut it off at 10 months. Agriculture is a $72 billion to $74 billion a year industry in North Carolina and they run into problems this is no way authorizes the hiring of illegal immigrants or illegal workers. And I encourage you to vote no on the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To what purpose does the gentleman from Onslow Representative Cleveland rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak again on the amendment.[SPEAKER CHANGE]The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Using the H2A definition for our e-verify bills in ??. If everyone used the H2A program we would be better off. But they ignore it. Presently the bill says that the temporary employee is 90 days. And 90 days is more than sufficient time to get a crop out of the field. And they could move from employer to employer with no problem and do the work that has to be done. The H2A program is a good program and as I said earlier if everyone utilized it we would not have the near the problems in the state that we have presently. I would encourage you to support the amendment and put the 90 day provision back in the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To what purpose does the gentlement from Nash Representative Collins rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well I know a lot of the farmers in my area use the H2A employees and some of them don't and I didn't realize until just this debate started the reason now I guess why some of them don't I thought they were just maybe skirting the law. But if all they can use a H2A employee for is 90 days I understand why they don't 'cause the season employees that come to do agriculture work in my area come up in May and begin to pick cucumbers then they go through the tobacco season picking tobacco then they eventually they wind up picking sweet potatoes in November so that's about a 7 month process. So if we are limiting them to 90 days by this amendment I am certainly against it and I encourage you to vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] . To what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan Representative Warren rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak to the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Once again what I want to stress is that the caveat we put in e-verify 2 that Representative Cleveland and I both pushed through here last session is not binding. It is again a violation of MOU for e-verify so we need what is in the current bill we need that for various businesses, agriculture particular, and I think it is appropriate to use the H2A definition that is there for agriculture so again I encourage you to let's do the right thing and vote this amendment down.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Collins a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Nash yield to a question from the gentleman from Pender? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, in regard to your statements about those farmers in your district using the H2A program and under the understanding that the current revised definition of our e-verified opens it up in regards to seasonal workers. So it doesn't restrict it for 90 days. Therefore that reflects the H2A definition that is not restrictive for 90 days. So my question to you is I'm having a hard time understanding for those farmers in your district that are using the H2A program then why are they having trouble with the 90 day provision that has nothing to do with the H2A program? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was led to believe by what Representative Cleveland just said a minute ago that the H2A program does utilize that definition that we're now restricting to 90 days. That's what I was led to believe by the arguments so far. If you could correct that, I'd be happy to understand that better. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Duplin, Representative Dixon, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the 90 day window is not sufficient. Please vote No on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Transylvania, Representative Whitmire, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the sponsor or, actually, of the bill's sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman...the amendment sponsor or the bill sponsor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That'd be the bill sponsor, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield to a question from the gentleman from Transylvania. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question would be this: as far as loopholes being potentially widened, certainly the farm sector of our economy is very important and I live on the farm that's been in my family for eight generations. I've worked that farm for many, many, many, many years of my life. That being said, security, domestic threats, labor. There's a balance here, and I go with security. When it comes to going from a year to ten months or 90 days in weighing that, certainly there are times when maybe you have your cucumbers early in the year and your sweet potatoes late in the year under the same farm. But are not most, question number one, most of these going from one farm operation to another and 90 days would suffice for that? And the second question is are we opening this door well beyond agriculture to other industries that compete with people who are here who are also looking for work, and I don't buy the statement that a lot of times people won't do that type of work. So, two questions please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, the first question about the 90 day length, no, it's not sufficient. I agree with Representative Collins and Representative Dixon on that. The nature of the people who are migratory workers will start sometimes in Florida and work their way up the coast. You're working with a whole different group. They follow the crop harvest. And it depends on what type of crop your harvesting whether they come early in March or April or you're doing late-blooming crops in October. So that window isn't there, but it was a sufficient enough definition. That was what the Department of Labor settled on so I figured it would be adequate for us. I'm sorry, what was the second question? Oh, opening the window? I believe that any piece of legislation we pass up here can be circumvented. Everything we do up here, we try to do with the best of intentions. I believe that in my heart. But what it comes down to in actual application is it comes down the the individuals sense of morality, integrity, and character. Can somebody get around a ten month window or a 90 day window? Just as easily either one I would say, Representative Whitmire. By the same token this definition and this provision is not intended to nor does it invite or incent people to hire people who are here illegally. And if it did, if we got together as a body and said you know what let's go ahead and let people in North Carolina hire whoever they want, it's still a violation of federal law. So if you have an employer who decides that they're going to take the chance and hire somebody who is here illegally, then that's the risk they run. But it certainly won't be because they've gotten permission to do so by us using the Department of Labor's definition of a seasonal worker. And I, again, suggest everybody and encourage everybody to vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Avila, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask Representative Warren a question if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield to a question from the lady from Wake? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gladly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Warren, when people come...[AUDIO ENDS]

as migratory workers, is there any kind of a review process or a validation process or questionnaire that they have to be cleared for inference or do they just walk in and start working? In terms of they're accepted, they're vetted so to speak, in one area and that carries through to following farms that they might go to work for? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ??, what I've learned during this year-long process was that migratory workers can generally be people who have come here on a work visa or they can be people who are American citizens and they travel and I will share, it's just occurred to me, my very first set of in-laws were farm workers. They picked apples early in their lives, early in their marriage, but people who are citizens as Representative Whitmire said, he doesn't agree that there are people here who would do those, and he's right. There are people who do that for a living and they are migratory workers who follow the crop. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Burke, Representative Blackwell rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I apologize for interrupting the debate but could I ask to change my vote on House Bill 614 from yes to no? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's vote will be recorded as a no on House Bill 614. Is that the correct number? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pitt, Representative Brown rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Cleveland would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Onslow yield to a question from the gentleman from Pitt? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Representative, could you for this body please restate your opinion and analysis of the H2A Program as it pertains to the 90 day window please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The H2A Program has nothing to do with the 90 day window. If they come in under the H2A Program they're here and they work here and they work here legally because they're in that program. Now the people who use the H2A Program have to pay a better wage than the migrant workers that are moving back but there's no restriction on the time frame for a worker to my knowledge there's no restriction on the time frame on the H2A worker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So you would agree that the H2A Program is a better model to be used particularly for agriculture? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry. Mr. Speaker I couldn't hear the first part of his question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could the gentleman from Pitt please restate his question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you agree that the H2A Program is a better model to be utilized? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to ask an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I apologize. I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And does the gentleman yield to the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So in making this definition of seasonal workers more modified to more outline what the Federal Government has done wouldn't that further encourage the agricultural community to be able to utilize the H2A Program, therefore creating a better model within North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. I do not think that's the intent of what was done nor would it make any difference to the people using the program. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham, Representative Jones, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Warren would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield to the gentleman from Rockingham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hesitantly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Warren. My question is if this amendment were to pass and it would be a 90 day window is there anything in the law that would prohibit an employer from being able to hire this person as a seasonal temporary worker for 90 days and then them not be hired for any period of time, whether it's one day or one week, one month, one year, and then be rehired again. Would there be anything in the law that would prohibit that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't believe there would be anything in the law that would prohibit somebody from rehiring. In fact I'm sure that happens in the process. The problem with that caveat in the original ?? law is that a Memorandum of Understanding is when you participate with a ?? you verify everybody. Now the problem with that for seasonal workers and why we have it in there is a job superintendent for a farm, a large farm, might go pick up one day pick up 50 workers and the next day go out and get 50 workers and have 35 different ones in that body. So it becomes very onerous and almost, very difficult thing when you have a migratory worker who might have worked with you one day and the next day you've got 5 other people. So the whole process of calling them in in an 8 day period is unrealistic. So that's basically why it's there and the reason for this superseding that is that you can't

Without a 90 day window like that with the verified program, so what we did was address it through the definition of employee representative Jones. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Duplin, representative Dixon rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House and representative Whitmire, I am a real farmer. I was on the farm working this morning before I came to the session. When I leave I will go back to the farm and continue my work there. I'm not interested in opening the window you referred to or the possible window, but there is something that I am intensely interested in keeping open. And that is the doors to the supermarkets across this state and across this nation from which we get our food. Much of which comes from situations that we're discussion here today. At the appropriate time in this body I will expand my thoughts concerning this. It's not appropriate at this time, suffice it to say, I encourage you to vote against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on amendment two sent forth by representative Cleveland? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the Cleveland amendment. So many as favor the adoption of the amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the court will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 29 having voted in the affirmative and 82 in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Whitmire I just wanted to point out, I noticed the gentleman when after the question had already been put so I apologize, that's why you weren't called on to debate. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Blust rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth the amendment and the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust moves to amend the bill on page 12, lines 44 through 46 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Guilford has the floor to debate his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members, This amendment would not have been necessary if representative Cleveland's had passed so I held it off until we saw the vote on that. but basically the purpose of this amendment is because in the definition of employee on page 12 of the bill, the term does not include an individual whose term of employment is customarily one, affected by the seasonality of the industry in which the individual is employed, or is less than year round and now that's been amended to less than 10 months. And because seasonality is not clearly defined and can really be said to exist in almost every single business, every business has some season in which the business is stronger than others, many were of the opinion that this definition the way it read completely eviscerates the e-verify because an industry can just say, well we're seasonal so we don't have to abide by it. And I was gonna do six months changed the less than year round to six months and I remember back in committee one after this past committee talking to representative Collins explaining to me the actual operation of the farms. I'd agreed with him to go to seven, then Monday talking with the bill sponsor representative Warren, he had agreed with me on nine. I know the amendment yesterday went to ten but that was a comprehensive amendment so I didn't want to mess with amending an amendment. So this amendment is very simple, it just defines the exception for employee to be someone who works less than nine months out of the year. I think it's important given how much we have seen...

[Speaker Changes] The affordable care act business is starting to hire their employees on a temporary basis or limiting their hours or limiting their employment to get around the law, its something that businesses look at doing. So I think to protect the verify system, we need to make this ammenmend to the definition of employee. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentlemen from Rowan, Representative Warren rise? [Speaker Changes] To speak to the amendment. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentlemen, Representative Blust is right, when we spoke briefly here at this area actually the other day, we agreed on nine months. Later though, when Representative Brown was getting his amendment together, we took into consideration that there are crops after September. We have a whole christmas tree industry in Watauga, Ashe County, so Representative Brown decided on ten month, and I said well I guess its semantics, I mean, nine months, ten months, I don’t know if its worth tinkering with the bill for thirty days, but I would just say to you, come see come solve, its your conscience, and I’m not gonna get tore up over it one way or the other. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Onslow, Representative Shepard rise? [Speaker Changes] Yes sir, Mr. Speaker, question for Representative Dixon. [Speaker Changes] Does the gentlemen from Duplin yield to the gentleman from Onslow? [Speaker Changes] Yes Sir. [Speaker Changes] He yields. [Speaker Changes] Representative Dixon, as you know, Duplin County, many of our counties, we have a lot of poultry and pork industry there. Would this in any way be in confliction with the workers who work in those industries? Or would they be considered nonseasonal since its usually year round. [Speaker Changes] The poultry or livestock industry would not be nearly as affected as other types of agriculture, ie., vegetables, tobacco, etc,. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins rise? [Speaker Changes] Permission to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [Speaker Changes] I think, as I’ve mentioned before, we have some pretty have some pretty big farm operations where I’m from. And they do a lot of comprehensive farming, and the longest I know of any of them to keep people is about seven months out of the year, and I believe if they would move from my area to go do Christmas trees or whatever, I think that period would start over again for them, wouldn’t it? So I’m fine with this amendment, and encourage you to support it. [Speaker Changes] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the house is Amendment 3 sent forth by Representative Blust, to House Bill 786. So many as favor the adoption of the Blust amendment will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 59 having voted in the affirmative and 52 in the negative. Amendment 3 sent forth by Representative Blust is adopted. Further discussion? Further debate on the bill as amended? If not, [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Hastings rise? [Speaker Changes] I guess Mr. Speaker, I need to ask one of the bill sponsors a question. [Speaker Changes] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield to a question from the gentleman from Gaston? [Speaker Changes] Yes Sir. [Speaker Changes] He yields. [Speaker Changes] Representative Warren, this is a respectful and friendly question. I realize I’m from a smaller community and not one of the larger municipalities. But my district has about the same number of people in it as everybody else’s, so I need to take some time and clarify a couple of things here. In this bill, I see that the word employee is mentioned and I’m not familiar enough with the federal law to know, is an illegal alien who comes to work here illegible to be an independent contractor, which would not be an employee? [Speaker Changes] No sir. [Speaker Changes] They’re not? [Speaker Changes] It is against federal law to hire a person in the state or in the country illegally. I will not.. [Speaker Changes] I believe someone has a telephone playing some sort of song on. I would ask to please silence that. Look’s like its Larry Hall. Anyway, for what purpose does the. Representative Hall, you seem like a good person to blame for it. For what purpose does the gentleman Gaston, Representative Hastings seek recognition, does the gentleman have an additional question he would like to offer.. [Speaker Changes] Yes sir. [Speaker Changes] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield? [Speaker Changes] He yields. [Speaker Changes] So would this allow someone to come to the United States...

states and work illegally [speaker changes] No, sir. We have, North Carolina - No state has the authority to legislate that. We do not have control over immigration laws. [speaker changes] Follow up [speaker changes] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [speaker changes] Well, that's exactly where I was headed. If we believe in the supremacy clause of hte US Constitution, and the law is already set out under federal law as to how this would take place, why is it even necessary that we do this bill? And it's a respectful question, I'm not badgering you. If the law is already in place on the federal level, and we believe - some might or might not - in the supremacy clause of the US Constitution, why is it necessary? [speaker changes] Are you talking about the entire bill, or this section 8? [speaker changes] Does the gentleman wish to further refine his question to the gentleman from Rowan? You're recognized for that purpose, Representative Hastings. [speaker changes] Since the other parts are now a study, I guess we're focused on the part at issue. Is that correct? [speaker changes] Follow-up [speaker changes] I'm going along with you on this. I'm assuming [speaker changes] So is there a federal law that covers this ?[speaker changes] This pertains, Representative Hastings, this pertains to our North Carolina's e-verify law. And the reason we're discussing it is because the overall bill reclaimed North Carolina, gave us an opportunity to go back and do two, no three things. Number one, we had an opportunity to go in and correct an oversight which would create a level playing field for our state-based contractors requiring that any government entity, municipality, county, state entity, that would do contracting work for services or goods to send out an RFP. If our state-based contractors were competing with an out-of-state contractor who is not required to use e-verify, this will require our states not to do business with anybody that is not compliant with North Carolina e-verify, to give our contractors a level playing field. Another reason that we had the e-verify in there was because part 9 of the bill, which established a restricted drivers permit, it clearly establishes that permit holders were here illegally. So we had a provision in there which was taken out by yesterday's amendment that turned this into a study bill, that directed the Commisssioner not to initiate proceedings against an employer who did not e-verify someone who applied for a job with one of these permits. The reason was because the permit already established the fact that they were here illegally. It in no way, shape or form, though it was misinterpreted to - and maybe that's semantics or the way it was written or the way people reading it, some people interpreted it - it did not authorize people to hire anybody having a permit. It simply excused them from e-verify. The third thing was to take this opportunity to do a technical correction on the definition of seasonal worker. So all of this is not federal. It's a state bill. [Speaker changes] One more follow-up [speaker changes] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield to one last question from the gentleman from Gaston? [speaker changes] Yes, sir. [speaker changes] And I apologize for being confused. Sincerely. Is there a federal law that covers the provisions that you're trying to address in this bill. [speaker changes] No, sir [speaker changes] There's not a federal law [speaker changes] Not to my knowledge. [speaker changes] Thank you sir. [speaker changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis rise? [speaker changes] To discuss the bill in the light of clarifying some questions as a part of the debate. [speaker changes] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [speaker changes] In regard to the discussing the nature of this bill, simply germane to the bill, in regarding Representative Hastings question, in the light of that - we as a state due to the fact that the federal government has not been responsible of enforcing its immigration laws. That it is in our best interest to, as a state, to have our laws formed in a fashion that is in the best interests of the citizens of North Carolina. Anything that we do in this state regarding the issue of illegal immigration, either encourages further illegal immigration or discourages further illegal immigration. It's important on behalf of the citizens of the state, for many reasons. One is because it has a direct impact to our school systems. And it has a direct impact to our health care facilities. Everything that we do here, due to the federal irresponsibility of not enforcing the federal immigration laws, affects the bottom line of the budget of this state and impacts the citizens of North Carolina. So I say that in light of Representative Hastings questions, in the light of the reasons why this is

what we do here today and I just wanted to make those comments as a clarifying nature of the intent of why this bill is before you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Transylvania, Representative Whitmire, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis's comments were very astute and, again, this subject has got many pluses and many minuses. I wish we had a better way to address the pluses, as Representative Dixon had addressed with the farm community. Simply put, as far as making our state more attractive to folks to come here and compete with folks who are looking for jobs, and I know the criticisms will be some of those jobs you can't get anybody to do. I do take issue with that to some degree but regardless, we are making this to where we are making the folks that are trying to put hard work back to work, who are here as residents and citizens, they're competing against labor that will take a half or a third and we're basically just worsening the problem and demoralizing our own folks. And with that I hope that we can find a way to make this discussion better in the future but for now I'll be opposing the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Vance, Representative Baskerville, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to the bill sponsor [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield to a question from the gentleman from Vance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is this still a study bill? I'm just confused. Is it still a study bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Rowan yield to a question from the gentleman from craven? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I went home last night and when I go home at night sometimes I have to be retrained the next day. So could you please explain to me, because there seems to be some confusion, what exactly has been turned into a study in this bill and particularly section 10. Is that a study or is that still in the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. There are 11 sections, I think, if I remember correctly, in the bill and all the sections, well actually 11th section retains dates of implementation so there are ten provisions in the bill. All of them, with the exception of section 8, has been turned into a study bill, sir. All the law enforcement part. All the parts pertaining the creation of a restricted drivers permit and restricted ID. The whole bill, sans the part of section 8, is a study bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Ashe, Representative Jordan, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I'll be pretty brief here. A lot of the questions have come up about, aren't there federal laws? Aren't there things dealing with some of the things? Why are we doing what we're doing? Representative Warren and I have talked with Representative Brown, Representative Collins, why did we even get in the middle of this at some point? The reason we are here is because the Federal Government has left us hanging in the wind for decades on this issue. Something has got to be done. We had a very finely crafted and balanced proposal to try to deal with the very complicated and difficult issue of illegal aliens of unlawful presence, the whole issue. We've done what we could. Putting most of it into a study was required because if you pull one little piece it's like that game Jenga. If you pull one little of the wooden pieces out the whole thing falls apart. Then we have nothing. So instead of just doing nothing and keeping our head stuck in the sand we came up with a proposal and Representative Warren worked on it twice as long as I have. We met with stakeholders from the entire range across this issue. We need to do something, folks, and let me just read one sentence from the United States Supreme Court to show you the trouble that we're in unless we deal with this issue because Congress won't. This is the Arizona case, the very recent Arizona case. Let me read you one line in here and see if it sinks in, see what you think about it, "as a general rule it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States." That is the current federal status. That's why we've got to do something here and we've got to do it to protect our citizens. There are people

Out there driving without insurance, without licenses. There are people who are out there doing important work in our farms, in other industries. I'm tired of doing nothing, I'm tired of sticking my head in the sand. And if we can at least get this part of the e-verify to help some of our agriculture and other interests. And study the rest of it and come back and see if the insurance and safety, and other things, are, we have to get some data on that. And I think we'll be in a better position. But keep in mind, United States Supreme Court, as a general rule, it's not a crime for a removable alien to reign present in United States. I would urge you to please support this bill. And come back in the short session and see what we've come up with in this study. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Bill 786 on its third reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine and record the vote. 84 having voted in the affirmative and 29 in the negative. House Bill 786 passes on its third reading, will be engrossed, and sent to the Senate. Senate Bill 480 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 480 a bill to entitle an act to authorize the acquisition or construction and financing without appropriations from the general fund of certain capital improvement projects of the constituent institutions of the University of North Carolina. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill was put forth by the university folks, if you scroll down the title, pretty well it tells you what the bill's about. You can scroll down through the items there and look at what the universities are wanting to do. Most of those will be in improvements in student halls, in student living, or an expansion of those things. Very few other things are on there. Please vote green for this. I think it's important to the universities for them to continue to improve what they do for our students. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman from Onslow, Representative Cleveland rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman sitting very far away from the gentleman from Onslow yield to the gentleman's question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would love to as long as it doesn't have anything to do with e-verify. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. Conditionally. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We could discuss that in private. In a fast read here, I get the impression that all of these projects are gonna be financed by bonds. Is that your understanding? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As far as I understand Representative Cleveland. I'm not the expert on this but as far as I understand that's true. Not by, not by, the student fees also, I'm sorry I should have said that. I'm getting a voice in my background, back here, back here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Onslow has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We do this every session. We pass a bill to let the university system continue to expand. And we hear that the university system needs a billion or more dollars for repairs. But we still keep expanding. And the biggest part of this expansion that I have aggravation with and heart burn, is the student fees that they use to support a big part of it. We actually have some universities in this state whose student fees rival the tuition we're charging. That's wrong. And it's getting there because of expansion. And if we as a legislative body don't pay attention to what's going on and been going on out there for some time, and I've mentioned this before on this floor, we're not doing for our constituents and our students what we should be doing. This needs to be looked at, and it needs to be brought to a screeching halt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Brawley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Yes, these are primarily residence hall.

And they will be financed with bonds that will be paid by student fees. And as the father of the undergraduate at UNC Charlotte and another graduate at Western Carolina, I'm gonna be paying those. But, one of my children sent me an email today and she's having problems getting housing, there's just not enough. We can't put it off. They need a place to live when the go to school. I ask for your support for this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose do you rise the lady from Orange, Representative Insko rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House. If you take a look at student fees they vary widely across all the university campuses. And some of them do indeed seem to be out of step with the others. Some seem to be too high. But this annual bill that we have that comes through is really self liquidating. Not all these students pay for these residence halls. The students who live there do, the students who use the parking deck pay for the parking deck. So they're very targeted fees, and not across the board fees and I urge you to vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentlemen from Rutherford desire further comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak a second time Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. Just real quick let's go to the piece that I most ?? with and look at the University of North Carolina Charlotte numbers here. Now, when I went there which was not long ago. Maybe a little bit longer. ?? Hall was old then. If you guys remember that's one of the four quads that were there, that were originally built in the 60's I believe. Oak Hall was built while I was there. And that's been many years ago guys. For this particular example is not an expansion, but is a renovation. It is to give those students a place to live. As Representative of Raleigh was talking about, the one without hair. As Representative ?? was talking, I have two students at NC state. And to see, having to upgrade those dorms is much needed right now. In some of what NC state is proposing is also some of the renovations. So this is not an expansion ??, most of them are renovations if you look at them. And they're much needed renovations for these kids to have good places to stay. You wanna renovate to get the data in there, I don't know if you guys have seen, have seen the kids, how they take tests now. They do a lot of stuff online. A lot of these renovations will be to get the data in there ?? get the data, to them, so they do their studies online, do their homework online. Some of this is technology renovations as well as housing renovations also within the housing. So please vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Vance, Representative Baskerville rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to the Bill Sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Rutherford yield to a question gentleman from Vance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I Do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. When I first saw this thing I noticed that it was a little over seven million dollars in there about a track and a new residence dorm for Winston-Salem State University, but that is not in this version of the bill. I was just asking what happened to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That Winston State University issue got taken out in finance. There is some issues involved and some questions involved and I didn't take in that, the discussion, the debate, I was there. But there may be someone else on the floor that may have some other opinions on it. It was just taken out. The dorms still in it but the track is not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Davidson, Representative Brown rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask the Bill Sponsor a question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Rutherford yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the Speaker is gonna owe me after this one I think. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative, please explain section four to me if you would. The first sentence in this bill, it says the Board of Directors may issue subject to the approval of the Director of the Budget, at one time, or from time to time, special obligation bonds of the Board of Governors for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of acquiring, constructing or providing for the projects authorized in section two of this act. Would this not be a violation of the bill that we passed that's gonna limit the use of these special obligation funds until we get them down to a certain percentage of the state total debt? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brown. I'll have to say I don't know. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd say that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? mention something. That is that this bill will be on the calendar tomorrow. If members have some questions that can wait until tomorrow that may be appropriate to do that. This is a two day bill. Does the lady wish to propound an additional question? Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't really have a question, I just wanted to have a follow up comment. If that indeed does really negate what we passed a month or so ago, I would have really serious.

[Speaker changes.]...reservations about ever voting for this bill. Thank you, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Adams, rise? [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, just wanted to comment that I do support the bill. It's a good bill. It doesn't effect the budget. It's self-liquidating. We do it every year, these are projects that are needed and it's something I believe we should support. Appreciate your support on the bill. It is a good bill. It's needed and it's something that we have consistently done. It is not going to impact the budget. Thank you, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Bumgardner rise? [Speaker changes.] Speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, sir. I don't know if this is a good idea or not because we're givin' people permission to spend alot o' money here with virtually...they're just doin' whatever it is they wanna do, based on the fact that they think they're gonna have more and more students in the future and, if they're wrong, they're gonna come back to the state and say "we were wrong about this and we don't have the money to pay it"...and they're...this...when you sell a bond, what you're doin' is usin' a credit card to build somethin' that you couldn't otherwise build cause you don't have the money. For that reason, I can't support this. [Speaker changes.] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bil 4A on its second reading. Submitting as favor the passage will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 101 having voted in the affirmative and 11 in the negative. The bill passes its second reading and will remain on the calendar. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 151, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 151, ?????? an act to amend Marine Fisheries Laws and amend the law governing the construction of terminal ?????? ??????? ?????? enacts. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis, rise? [Speaker changes.] To briefly debate the bill and to offer amendment. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. The bill before you today, is a bill that has been revised in regard to Senate language and this will be sent over to the Senate for concurrence. What this bill does is simply clarify and also strengthen the terminal ?????? laws that were passed in 2011 in this chamber. If you look into the bill in regards to Section 2 that deals with terminal ???????, which I will speak on real briefly here at the beginning. And we actually further clarify and truly define the definition of terminal ????? to make sure that it's not construed in any way, shape or form as a jetty. We also further clarify and remove some obstacles for the four terminal ????? that we have allowed to be built in this state as a way of a pilot project. The obstacles that were put in the way to actually mean that it was impossible for these terminal ???? to be built but we've done so in a way...with tide fences around those remove obstacles and in a way that also protects...taxpayer protection as well as environmental concerns for those who represent districts along the coast. Mister Speaker, I'll conclude my comments with that, am willing to take any questions from the members and I'd like to offer an amendment at the proper time. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to send forth his amendment. The Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Representative Millis moves to amend the bill on page one, lines two and three by rewriting those lines to read as follows: [Speaker changes.] Representative Millis, the gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, the House...the amendment you see before you is a small portion of House Bill 300 that was sponsored by Representative McElraft...that everyone voted for in this chamber. It was here ???? at the time of the vote, there was no opposition to it. The bill was over in the Senate and we would like to put this as part of the bill cause it definitely is germane to the actual intent of this bill for coastal revisions and definitely ask for your support on this amendment. Again, there was no opposition to the bill and this is only a small portion of that that is important to Representative McElraft. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the gentleman from Lenoir, Representative Graham, rise? [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'd like to be recorded as yes on House Bill....

786 [Speaker Changes] Gentlemen would be recorded as voting yes on the house bill 786. Further discussion and further debate on the amendment. If not question before the house is the adoption of the amendment one sent forth by Rep Callen excuse me Rep Miller for as many as favoring the adopting amendment would vote aye those opposing would vote No. The clerk would open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 109 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative. The amendment is adopted. We are back on the main bill. For what purpose does the gentlemen from New Hannover Rep Catlen rise [Speaker Changes] To Debate the bill [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill [Speaker Changes] Thank you. I very much appreciate all the hard work that Rep Millis has put in to it and I urge your support. Just to give you a little bit of a back ground for years and years since the federal government built the inert coastal waterways, they have funded the maintenance of the hamlets and they have also funded a lot of our beach re nourishment. The inter coastal waterways add a lot of energy to the water that flows in and out of the hamlets. The federal government no longer maintains their agreement to fund these projects. Since the federal government doesn’t fund these projects, the state government doesn’t give matching dollars because local money is not as gold as federal money and So the burden on maintaining these hamlets is pretty much on the back of the local government and they are very important to our economy. They are important to our fishing industry . And they are very important to our recreational economy. so we need to do some thing. So there is need for a tool. And North Carolina is one the few places that is over the years banned the use of such tools. And I understand that. I have worked very hard over the last 20 years to move sand around in a friendly way. But there is no money any more. So this bill keeps the pilot program employed and it does make it possible and I want to move the four terminal groins forward I want to clarify and I said this drawing up yesterday. Just like every body knows what we are really talking about. Just see that a circle with a line is the groin field. That’s what a lot of think we are talking about here and that’s what they do in New Jersey. And it doesn’t work very well and it’s dangerous and its ugly .The next line circle with a line is what a jetty truly is. People have misquoted the terminal groin issues as jetties quite a bit. Jetties do block sand movement. They are there to stabilize navigation channels. When you build a jetty you have to put [??] money in place to move the sand from one side to another because it will starve the downstream beaches. Terminal groins are built to the edge of the sand and they do not block the movement of the sand in water and they are pre-filled with beach quality sand. What they basically do is stop erosion from an inlet which is moving back and forth due to inter coastal waterways. It’s a they are not jetties. They are only constructed at the beach terminus or the end of the beach and they do not stop sand movement. So there was a lot of misunderstanding in the past on this issue and so one of the things that we worked on together is a truly clarify the definition and that’s the reason I sent out this such a pretty drawing. Anyway, I request you support for this bill please [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the lady from Gilford, rep Harrison rise. [Speaker Changes] To send forth an amendment [Speaker Changes] The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read [Speaker Changes] Rep Harrison moves to amend the bill on page 3 line 40 by rewriting the line to read the inlet [Speaker Changes] The lady from Gilford has the floor to explain the amendment [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the house. This amendment will remove the language on page 3 line 40 that says the inlet manager plant is not required to manage the sea level rise. We had a healthy debate regarding the sea level rise in this chamber last year. North Carolina is particularly vulnerable to sea level rise. With more than 5000 miles of ocean front with estranged shore line and we and much of it is low lying. and there is the U.S. Geological survey study that came out last June indicated that we are in a Sea level rise hot spot north of cape caterers where our sea level has been rising 3 to 4 times the global rate. And this fall there was another study from environmental research letter that indicates that the sea level rise appears to be rising.

faster than previously anticipated, so I think we’re in for a big problem if we are constructing these items and not factoring in the sea level rise aspect, and I would just urge your support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover, Representative Catlin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The sea level rise issue is very controversial, and it’s very difficult to get into as part of this amendment. I would say that if sea level is rising, the worst thing that would happen is it would cover up the beach and cover up the terminal groin, so I don’t know where that would have any impact, but as a… I’m a coastal engineer and a coastal geologist, and when we deal with sea level rise, we try to take the historic trend, which is basically about a dime thickness every year. So there are predictions out there that have done modeling that predict a lot faster sea level rise, but we can’t even predict where our hurricane’s going with thousands of educated people and computer programs, so to add this provision would basically put the terminal groin pilot program back in a dead zone because there is no way to calculate that sea level rise and how to do that in your early management program. So I strongly urge that you vote no to this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on this amendment. If not, the question before the house is the passage of amendment number 2, sent forth by Representative Harrison. So many as favor the adoption of the amendment will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 40 having voted in the affirmative and 73 in the negative, the amendment fails. We’re now back on the main question. Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Harrison rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House. I really appreciate Representative Catlin and everyone else’s work on this bill because what the Senate sent over was really problematic, and I think that they’ve done a really good job of trying to refine it and limit the impact of the bill, but I’m afraid there’s still a problem. I don’t know that this is a good idea for us to be hoarding up our shorelines. It was a good policy we put in place in 1985. We established this very carefully crafted four project pilot project legislation last session that we all approved in Senate Bill 110. What this bill does is it rolls back many of the provisions that were put in place to protect the taxpayer and the environment, and I think that there’s a chance we could be committing taxpayers to future mitigation costs that far exceed the construction costs of these groins, and I think that it seems like the language also allows for multiple jetties at – or excuse me, terminal groins, at these locations. So I would urge the members to vote no on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Harrison a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Guilford yield to a question from the gentleman from Pender? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the light of your debate in regard to removing taxpayer protections, on page 4 of the bill, beginning in line 42 and ending in line 48, is it clear to you that in no way, shape or form does this loosen the taxpayer protections, but further strengthens it by saying flat out that a local government may not use these funds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I appreciate your pointing that out. I guess some who’ve looked at this language and interpreted it are concerned that perhaps the mitigation cost may not be factored into this, so I understand those can be far more expensive than the construction costs. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A follow-up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On page 4, in regards to not covering the costs for mitigation, beginning in line 1 all the way down to line 13, is it clear that the financial insurance, whoever constructs these four terminal groins for this state for us to see how the project pilot goes and for us to evaluate the effectiveness of it, that it includes long-term maintenance and monitoring, that it includes mitigation measures tied directly to the inlet management plan, and it also covers the cost of the mitigation or removal of the terminal groin if it doesn’t comply with the stats of the inlet management plan? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate you raising that. I guess there’s just difference of interpretation, but thank you, and I do appreciate your

...work on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 151 on its second reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record should do so at this time. Representative Steinberg, Representative Bryant, gentlemen wish to vote on this matter? The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Eighty having voted in the affirmative and thirty-three in the negative. Senate Bill 151 passes on its second reading and will remain the calendar as the title was changed. Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer are recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Lewis and Setzer of the Finance Committee, Senate Bill 379, Expansion of Natural Gas in Rural Areas. Favorable as to House Committee Substitute No. 2, unfavorable as to the House Committee Substitute No. 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, the prior setting of this bill on the calendar is stricken as the House was not yet in possession of the Committee Report. However, without objection, the Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 379 calendared for today. The original on the unfavorable calendar. Is there objection to the bill being calendared for today? Hearing none, the bill will be calendared for today. Senate Bill 223, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 223, a bill to be entitled An Act to Allow Area Boards to Offer Applicants for the Position of Area Director Severance Benefits and Relocation Expenses as an Incentive for Accepting an Offer of Employment. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Buncombe, Representative Ramsey rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I would ask you to support Senate Bill 223. This bill was introduced by Senator Hise and it's primarily in response to LME's across the State. As many of you know in our mental health system, that's a very complex, constantly changing world that they live in. And it's been quite difficult, especially in the western part of the State, to obtain the proper leadership needed because of some restrictions on the ability to pay, to offer benefits and to do other things. Pay for the relocation and severance benefits. So that's the purpose of this bill. It's to help our mental health system work more efficiently and give our local LME's the ability to retain and attract the best folks possible. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. This does not require an additional appropriation. It will be funded through the LME per capitated rate that consumers would be charged. So I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 223 on its second reading. So many as favors passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and six having voted in the affirmative and five in the negative. Senate Bill 223 passes on its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. Seeing none, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 223 on its third reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will say aye, those opposed will say no. The ayes have it and Senate Bill 223 passes on its third reading. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 305, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 305, a bill to be entitled An Act to Improve the Public Private Partnership of which the Division of Motor Vehicles Issue Motor Vehicle Titles and Registrations. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, in 2005 this General Assembly passed a idea that was designed...

to help improve the ability to collect property taxes on automobiles. The idea was to use the tag agents as the agents to collect the property tax. The bill that you have before you deals with what fee or what percentage will need to be paid to the collectors of that tax. It does a few things, the first part section 1 sets up an advisory committee which will work, this is something frankly that we have needed for a long time, it will work with the DMV and with the private license plate advisory committee to study various things including how much the fee that we're about to discuss should be. This bill also creates a new concept called a T sticker what this means is that you know some of our car dealers now do the tags themselves they were not particularly comfortable with the collection of the property tax as a part of what they do so they can issue this new T sticker and then the actual LPAs, or License Plate Agencies, would administer would collect the full property tax that was due and also the charge for the plate. I'd like to share a little bit of information with you in the interest of full disclosure. I know from the finance committee meeting that some of our counties have expressed some concern with this bill. I asked and have received from our fiscal staff what the costs to the counties would be based on this bill that you have before you and the answer is the cost is $3, 463, 476.00 which is a lot. But then I asked what do the counties gain for this? Currently the collection rate for property tax on automobiles is at 86%. Under this new system where the person can't get a tag unless they pay their property tax our staff estimates and common sense I think would tell you that that number will go to nearly 100% So what does that mean? That means a gain of $72 million. So I think that more than offsets the cost. I'll be glad to get as in depth with this bill as the members want me to. I can tell you since this program was since this bill was passed creating this concept in 2005 folks have known this was out there finally the DMV has begun to work with the LPA's and to get them set up to be able to provide this very valuable service to the counties. And frankly it's a service that I think the citizens appreciate they enjoy the one stop shop if you will to do all their tax and tags business at the same place. So with that I would respectfully ask for your support. I send it both 305. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE]. For what purpose does the lady from Surrey Representative Stevens rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady has the floor to debate the bill.[SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House I'm gonna ask you to vote against this bill. I filed a bill at the beginning of this session to try to stop this program. I recognize what Representative Lewis says about how it is gonna increase and improve collections but let me tell you how bad it has already been on the county. My county alone now has triple the costs of trying send out its tax bills and do collection. There was a better way to do this program and nobody......

...can tell me why we didn't do it that way? OK? This one was going to be "Let's send out a common bill." No problem. I have no problem with that, saving the efficiencies, but instead here's the system they came up with: "Counties send your tax information to the Department of Motor Vehicles, because we know they're so efficient, send your information up there. Let them send a single combined bill but oh, by the way county, you get to pay for the entire bill. You pay for the mailing cost. You pay the state to send out your bill." Then the bill goes to the citizen. The citizen's supposed to go to the license plate agency and pay both the tax and the bill, their renewal bill. All well and good but the county gets to pay for that too. The license plate agency gets to add a fee and take it out of that money before they send it back to the county. Then the money turns around and goes to the state who again processes it and takes a fee and then sends its money to the county. This is a new fee on top of all that I just announced to you. My county is outraged. Several counties were outraged. Why couldn't we do it like we do inspections? That's the question I've never been able to get answered by anybody here. Why couldn't we have the state send the information to the county? Let the county do a single bill and then when you pay your taxes, they do a check, just like they do at inspection stations, and you get your license. They would still be collecting 100 percent. They wouldn't have triple the cost of collection, and now add another $0.71 per bill on top of that. So Representative Lewis was giving you the party line on that that we're only collecting 86 percent and this one I'll collect is 100 percent, but that was what they were promised before it even went here. This is tripling the cost on our county and it's an unfunded mandate and I would ask that you vote against the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ms. Stevens... [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just wondered if Representative Stevens would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Surry yield to the gentleman from Nash? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm asking you this question because I am trying to understand this issue? I don't understand everything about what you just said about the two different processes. What I am trying to understand is this: I've been getting those riot letters from somebody in my county office and as I read all of them together, the second email she sent me, they were complaining about the fact that these extra bills, as you were talking about, was going to cost the counties in North Carolina $4.8 million over the next 18 months, were her exact words. Then the next $4.8 million over 18 months. So that's $3.5 million dollars a year basically. Anyway, the next email she sent me said that with the extra collections that the counties were going to give them additional $45-50 million per year. So my email response to her was, "Are you seriously complaining to me that it's going to cost $4.8 million over 18 months to get an additional $50 million? Where is the complaint? I just don't understand it?" [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to respond to the gentleman's question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm assuming that your call came from a license plate agency. That's from the county itself. OK. My county says, "We currently collect 90-95 percent of our bills. We don't collect them all at the same time. You have to figure it out throughout the year." They're saying, "We collect 90 percent of our bills without this and now we're going to pay triple the cost to do it, to get it out there." Now, the system that I said, and that's what I propose to bill and then have a substitute ready to put it in, would have changed this system where the counties could've decided how they were going to spend their money on collection and simply have the license plate agency have a box check, just like you do for inspections. So it would've saved them money. Now, the money they're talking about, this $3.5 million, that's new money on top of the triple cost of sending out the Bill. My county has a private agency that it uses that cost about $0.75 to do a bill. The state's going to charge them about $1.25. The county collects its own money, still has the same number of people hired, and the license plate agency's going to charge them $0.71 per bill or $1.27 per bill to collect the money. Then it goes back to the state who's going to charge another fee to turn around and separate out the money and send it back to the county. This bill adds another either $0.71 or $1.27 to that expense per bill, per bill. It created more layers of government than we have when this was an attempt to consolidate a billing and make it a more simplified process. We've gone about as convoluted as we can, and I'm just asking you not to support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose...

[Speaker changes.]...does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale rise? [Speaker changes.] To speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] I don't fully understand all this myself so what I'd like to do...I'm gonna read something that I received from the tax administrator in one of my counties that just take a minute to do that and maybe somebody can explain to me...maybe the sponsor can explain it or whatever cause I don't really fully get it. Just so you know he's a tax administrator and also on the North Carolina Association of Assessing Officers...said "this bill among other things provides for a fee increase to the license plate agencies for collecting fees due under the new tag and tax together process...or tax and tag together. Under the current lobby, the LPA's receive forty-eight cents per transaction from the cities and counties for collecting property tax under this new process. This bill proposes to raise that amount to $1.06 initially and then drop it to seventy-one cents. We have not seen any evidence that the existing fee of forty-eight cents is insufficient. Further I don't believe that anyone has provided any rationale for why the fee should be $1.06 and then drop to $.71. The collection fee is taken from local property tax revenue so that the local governments will hafta' pay this increase if the bill is enacted into law. We cannot see any justification for this. The LPA's have nothing to do with determining the amount due nor do they have anything to do with the distribution of the proceeds collected. They have no additional duties involved in this new tax and tag program. The only possible additional requirement that I can see is the size of the bank deposit bag and usually the bank provides those. Another point, and perhaps more troubling, is...then the fee increase is that it appears that as 305, it sets up an LPA Advisory Board as a quasi-governmental board, at taxpayer expense, in support of contractors who enter into service agreements, for profit, with another state agency, the DMV. This makes no sense to me." I would ask that you not support this bill and so, if anybody can explain...counter this, I'd like to hear it. I'm gonna ask that you not support it. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan, Representative Ford, rise? [Speaker changes.] To debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] I ask that you vote against this bill. I've heard from my county commissioners, they're opposed to it, said it will cost them a minimum of a quarter million dollars more a year. A minimum of a quarter million, probably more. And ???? local tag office, if they get aggravated because now they're collecting taxes and people that are paying taxes are not usually happy to begin with...if they get aggravated and they cease operations and go into some other business..and most of them have other businesses that sell tags, then the county may get stuck with selling the tags. It's already happened in some parts of North Carolina. So I ask that you oppose this bill. We're already collecting in our county 86 to 92 percent and most...MOST of the ones that are not collected are the ones that are 8 to 10, 12 dollars. It does add up but...this will cost my county more and I ask that you oppose this bill. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the lady from Orange, Representative Insko, rise? [Speaker changes.] To debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker and Members. What I'm hearing from speakers are concerns about the process, not about the concept so I do think that we need to...probably take time to contact our County Commissioners but the concept is a good concept, it will bring in alot more money. It will...people owe this money. We ought to be collecting it. We may need to tinker with this a little bit but the concept is a good idea and I urge you to vote for the bill and we can object a third and get more information. [Speaker changes.] For what purpose does the gentleman from Brunswick, Representative Iler rise? [Speaker changes.] To ask the bill presenter a question. [Speaker changes.] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Brunswick? [Speaker changes.] Yes, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] He yields. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker, if I understand and I have had conversations about this quite a while and my county thinks it's a great idea. They're gonna gain from this because of additional collections. I've had conversations with certain people about their counties opting out at some point. Wasn't this bill..wasn't this process set up, as you mentioned I believe...several years ago...and isn't this just about the fee...this bill?? [Speaker changes.] Thank you for that, Representative and let me begin by saying that's a great looking suit that you're wearing today. Yes, this process began in 2005. It's been out there, it's been out there, it's been out there. Some of the concern that you've heard on the floor today...frankly it's [Speaker changes.]

probably a valid concern about the way the program was setup. The point of this bill, though, has to do with the fact that we as a state have mandated these privately owned license plate agencies to perform a service and we have to compensate them for that. So this establishes what that compensation is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Ashe, Representative Jordan, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Ashe? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, thank you representative Lewis. You talked about approximately 3.5 million dollars of cost to collect approximately 70 million dollars, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It seems reasonable to me, and I would ask the question of you, would it not be reasonable that these transaction and collection costs should be applied to the delinquent taxpayers as opposed to coming from the gross receipts of the counties who are already owed this tax money and it is not actually new money? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Representative, I think that would make sense. Obviously if it's a delinquent taxpayer you've got two or three issues involved. One, you may never collect the tax so it's a net loss. Two, the fact that the taxes are collected at the same time the [??] issued there's no lag in the receipt of the tax money to the counties. I've looked at this and it just seems to me that if we're going require this, and we are, it's law, we're going to require this, in fact you may have even seen it advertised in your local newspaper, the tax and tag thing, if we're going to require this private businesses to do then we're going to have to compensate them for that. And so I see your point, and as always, is a very astute point but I would still ask you to support the bill on the grounds that we're mandating what these private businesses do and we need to compensate them for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very interesting discussion. I got an email from one of my county commissioners earlier last week very, very much opposed to this bill. Very opposed to it. Didn't want to see it happen, wanted me to vote against it. Last Friday at 3:00, myself and that commissioner went to our local tag office and we sat down with a lady that run the tag office and we had a discussion. She showed us everything on the computer that would be going on, how the process would work, and we had a very good long discussion. We were there probably an hour and a half. At the end of that discussion the commissioner was not as opposed to it as he had been when the first conversation started. We have since had some, Representative Hurley and I, have since had some other discussion with some other county commissioners but at this point I think it is a good deal for the counties. One point that I made to my commissioner, and I probably shouldn't say this in open discussion, but the local tax departments at the county will be doing a lot less work now and they could actually save some money there by laying some people off and that's unfortunate to have to say that but if they're not there and they're not collecting these taxes maybe their services are not needed. So the county could save some other money that way. It's not a perfect bill, I understand, but I think in the long run with the percentage rate of money that's collected and going up I think it's probably a good deal for the counties so I think you should support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Randolph, Representative Hurley, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Lewis a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the lady from Randolph? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, yes ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, if we vote against this bill today is that going to stop the program that's already begun since 2005 that we've been planning?

with everything in place? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a very, very good question. The short answer is no. It's going to move forward. The question that you have to ask yourself as you contemplate that response though is if in fact we're going to compensate these private businesses at a rate that they say is not sustainable for them to perform the work, are we going to either a) relieve them from having to do this or b) and I know this sounds like an exaggeration but as somebody who's had the privilege to sit on the Program Evaluation Committee for seven years now and I've watched the work that they've done on these LPA's and they've praised how efficient they are and what a good job they do and they really are at a break-even point now and I'm concerned frankly if we do not adequately compensate them their choice may be to lock the door. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you know how much the State has already spent in getting all these places ready for this program and they've already put in everything that they need for this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, thank you for that. I don't know the exact amount. I can request staff with the permission of the Speaker to get that. I can tell you that like everything there seems to be a small hitch. Whenever we try to do something, I know that a week or two ago when the main State-run DMV Office attempted to begin accepting credit cards it actually wound up shutting down the whole office for the day. Everything went off line. So there are some challenges in place but the State has to your point invested quite a bit, spent quite a bit, to get this program up and going and it is going to go into effect regardless the outcome of this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I please debate the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady from Randolph is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It appoints an advisory committee in here which I'm sure will be working with the counties and with the Tag offices. I think as you heard this bill is not going to stop it. It's just going to try to figure out an amount that's going to be paid, whether the county, if they do collect a lot, and the tag offices do need to be compensated for their work and it is going to take some work off of the county tax office and it has put a lot of work on our Tag offices but they are all set up now to do this and I thought it was supposed to go on line on July the 1st. So I think we should vote for this and if we have to come back and address the amount that we pay, whichever way and however it works, I'm sure we can do that. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanley, Representative Burr, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman I move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Stanley moves the previous question as to Senate Bill 305. Submitting in favor for previous question will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 64 having voted in the affirmative and 47 in the negative, the previous question is adopted. Pursuant to the rules the Minority Leader and the Majority Leader are each allowed a three minute rebuttal. Does the gentleman, does the Minority Leader wish to waive his three minutes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the Majority Leader wish to waive his? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, for what purpose does the gentleman rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had a malfunction. I wanted to be yes on the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was going to be very surprised if the gentleman had voted no on that motion. The gentleman will be recorded as voting yes. The question before the House is the passage of the Senate

[Speaker Changes] The committee substitute for Senate Bill 305, on its second reading. As many as favor the passage will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. the Clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 72 having voted in the affirmative and 37 in the negative. Senate bill 305 passes on its second reading, and will without objection. [Speaker Changes] ?? [Speaker Changes] The bill having been objected to, the bill will remain on the calendar for a third reading. Representative Brandon, how does the gentleman wish to be recorded? [Speaker Changes] I would like to be recorded as voting no. [Laughter]. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman will be recorded as voting no. Special messages from the Senate, the clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] Special message from the Senate, Mr. Speaker, it is ordered that a message be sent to the House of Representatives with the information the Senate, it opts to report a comp briefs report for House Bill 614, a bill to indict an act in agricultural forestry operation when the appropriate action was taken by both chambers, the bill would be ordered enrolled. Respectfully, Sarah Lane, principle Clerk. [Speaker Changes] The bill is ordered enrolled and sent to the Governor by special messenger. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, it is ordered that a message be sent to the House of Representatives with the information the Senate, it opts to report a comp briefs on House Bill 998, a bill to indict an act and simplify North Carolina tax structure and reduce individual and business taxes with appropriate action to be taken by both chambers. The bill will be ordered enrolled. Respectfully, Sarah Lane, Principal Clerk. [Speaker Changes] The bill is ordered enrolled and sent to the Governor by special messenger. Senate bill 321, the Clerk will read. The clerk will suspend. For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Brian rise? [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, I'd like to be recorded as voting no on Senate Bill 305. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman will be recorded as voting no. The clerk may read the bill. [Speaker Changes] Committee substitute number 3 for Senate Bill 321, a bill to be entitled an act to cap reimbursement by counties, to make additional provisions relating to payment for medical services provided to inmates in county jails, to allow counties to utilize medicaid for eligible prisoners. To provide the vacancies in the office of District Court Judge shall be filled by appointment of the Governor, to require Register of Deeds to maintain regular office hours, amend provisions in 2013 environmental law amendments, and to create a private right of action against notaries who violate the notary public act. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Johnston, Representative Daughtry arise? [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. T[Speaker Changes] he gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. The house will come to order. [Speaker Changes] Members, particularly you members that are new here, this is a bill that has a lot of different parts. Most of the parts you've heard before either in committee or on the floor. The first part of this bill has to do with the medical services provided by the county for prisoners who are serving in the jails in the various counties. Presently the counties pay the hospitals the full amount for the cost of medical services. This bill would simply allow the counties to pay the same rate that the State pays when they have prisoners that get sick and take them to the hospital. And that is 70% of the cost of the entire bill. If its medicaid its two times medicaid. And I think my understanding is that there has been an agreement worked out between the county commissioners and the hospitals regarding this bill. There is some question as to the definition of being in custody, and I don't want to get into that part of the bill. I think somebody may have an amendment about that but I'm not sure. The second part of this bill is regarding District Court Judges and how they should be appointed if one were to resign or die while he or she was in office. Presently the Governor selects those people who resign or die in office. For those judges in the ?? Courts as well as the Superior Courts, at the district...

...the court level, the way the law has always been. The judicial district, the lawyers would meet and by secret ballot, they would select three names and they would be submitted to the Governor and the Governor was required to select one of the three names. This bill is a compromise that would allow the Governor to select whoever he wanted but the county bar, the judicial bar, would send five names and recommend strongly that the Governor select one of those five, but he would not have to select one of those five. The other part of the bill regards the Register of Deeds. It's a bill that I ran some time ago. It was a compromise bill where the Secretary of State would keep a record of when the Register of Deeds would be available, would be open during the week for business. It was done at the request of the State Bar, the Real Property Section of the State Bar to make sure that you could close loans and file papers in a consistent manner. And Mr. Speaker, I'd like to send forth an amendment at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry moves to amend the bill on page 5, lines 28 and 29, by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Johnston has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment that was requested by the Secretary of State to make sure their webpage was in effect and they wanted the effective date of the part of the bill that only affected the Register of Deeds to be moved from September 1st to December 1st, 2013. And I would respectfully request your support of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the Daughtry amendment? Seeing none, the question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Daughtry. So many as favor the adoption of the amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and eight having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment is adopted. Does the gentleman desire further comment on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would be happy to try to answer any questions anybody might have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover, Representative Catlin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin moves to amend the bill by rewriting the short title to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I learned yesterday that we create sausage bills and this one I'm going to make it a little less spicy. I would like to remove the environmental rules that were in here because they were tied to the passage of House Bill 94 and things have changed and working with staff, we'll find other places to put this. So it was section 7, 8, 9. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Harris rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the amendment's sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from New Hanover yield to the lady from Guilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Catlin, as I understand it, this language that's been added in Section 9 relating to the, I guess, bedrock limestone is actually an improvement on protection and I'm just concerned about taking that out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I agree with you. I share that concern, but it's tied to the passage of House Bill 94 and it doesn't look like that's going to move so we're going to either put it in a technical amendment or some other place when we need to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is Amendment 2 set forth by Representative Catlin. So many as favor the adoption of the amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Seventy-nine having voted in the affirmative and thirty-two in the negative. The amendment is adopted. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Strike that. I believe the amendment, the gentleman has withdrawn his amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate...

The bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and while I agree with large portions of the bill, and particularly the first part as it relates to counties, as long as that stays intact, but we'll see how long that stays intact, Ii have continuing concerns and can't vote for the bill because of the provision that deals with the judges. This goes back to the debate we had on the floor some time ago, maybe about 2 weeks ago now, and I'll set out why, although I thank Representative Daughtry, because I think that this is at least an integral work of improvement, given what was sent over. The district judges in vacancies are now chosen by a really good process, as best you can get in a political environment. And that is, that when there's a vacancy, the bar meets, and that county chooses 3 nominees, sends them to the Governor, the Governor must pick 1 of those 3 nominees. Essentially, allowing the community to have the input as to who's going to a judge that they elected, and to have the bar have input into the merit, and create some sense of merit selection in the process. This bill takes that out, and says that now the bar sends up 5 nominees, which is as fine as 3, but the Governor has to look at them, but then can throw them in the trash can. The Governor never has to pick 1 of those 5, and can still go pick their own. As I suggested, I'm opposed to this when there was some discussion of this kind of process when Mike Easley was Governor, and it never came to be when Beverly Perdue was Governor, and I'm opposed now, and it doesn't matter who the Governor is. Judges ought to be to the best they can given the environment in which they operate, and we operate as much as we can, giving some merit selection review to the bar, and the people of their county. After all, they're replacing someone who's elected by people in that county. And it ought not be based on who's the friend of the Governor, or who made contributions, or all the other things we know would go in, if we have with any governor, unrestricted capacity, and I think that's wrong in judicial decisions. It ought to be that the local bar has to send in 5 nominees is fine, I think it's actually better than 3. But at some point, when you're giving the Governor that many, there ought to be 1 that the Governor has to pick as a replacement. And if the population for some reason doesn't like that, or the political parties don't like that, well in a couple of years, or a year, that position is going to come up for election. But it is simply wrong to take the remaining sort of integrity out of the process. What ever merit selection we have, and simply turn it over, and say to the local community, you've gone through all this trouble of holding a bar meeting, nominating folks, looking at their records and then, But yeah, but doesn't matter, we're just kidding. We're going to select our own person anyway. And I think that really disses the local bar, and really takes out the little bit of merit selection we have in the process. And so, for that reason, because of that, I'm really opposed, and also frustrated again by process here. And again, this is not Representative Daughtry, who does a great job, but you know, Representative Stevens did a really good thing when this came up. And, as I recall the matter was re-referred, or referred to judiciary. Well, it went there, but the judiciary committee never met to talk about it. So, if we're going to refer a bill to the judiciary, we ought to at least have a meeting, in order to figure it out. We didn't. And if the judiciary committee's not going to meet, and talk about a topic that involves the selection of the judiciary, why have a judiciary committee. And so, for those reasons I am opposed to the bill, and I'm sorry it's included in other provisions that are good provisions, or at least they are until they get amended out, and I'm going to vote no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Arp rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To see if the Representative would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Does the gentleman from Cumberland yield to the gentleman from Union? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'm not a lawyer, or try very hard not to be involved in legal processes of the state, but. [SPEAKER CHANGES]So do I. [SPEAKER CHANGES]My question is, regarding, and you accurately touched on the very point that I'm in favor of this, but I wanted to get your thoughts on the fact that, because these judges are originally selected by the people, and when there's a vacancy, we are in a sense.

In our judgement, for those people until the next election. Give me your thoughts on the fact that the Governor is an elected body, versus the bar not being a body, so that you have that separation of power, and you have some type of response of an elected official being responsible for these. I think that's a good question, and I'll try to, Representative, give you my best response. My thought is, it's the local people who elected that judge. It is the local bar who has the sense, the best sense, certainly we don't know in Raleigh, what lawyers are doing their job in that county, how they've performed in court, are they at the court, are they responsive to their clients, do they understand multiple areas of the law. Because judges can't be just a criminal specialist anymore, or civil specialist. And there's no way to really get that. The people who have the best sense of that are all of the entire bar in an area. Now, I recognize that it gives us much more to work with in the wake, or mech. bars, because there's a lot more people to see and choose from, an a little less so in rural areas. But in some sense, it's even better in rural areas because they really do know everybody in their bar. And they really do have a sense. And I sense is, the 3 nominees that go up from the bar, you can always end up with a political appointment in a sense that the bar's sending up their favorite fellow or woman, but the bar really does try to get it right. They don't generally as a whole, send up 3 nominees who don't have those qualities that they think they would want appear in a judge. Fairness, and deliberateness, and thoughtfulness. And I think I would rather judge, and have the local community with that input, put their successor in for the short time, than the Governor. And as I suggested, it doesn't merit to me who the party the Governor is, and I've seen in all of us who have been here a little while have seen that process, and how it works, and when it can be somewhat unrestricted. And as matter of fact, let's just be clear in a different matter, there was a lot of consternation on the other side of the island, maybe rightly so about last minuet judicial appointments by the outgoing Governor, that may or may not, in some people's minds, have be made fully on merit, because there was not real check on that. I view the bar process as a check and a balance, and some merit in what is otherwise a very political process. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For why, does the gentleman wish to prepare a 2nd question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Does the gentleman from Cumberland yield to said question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Do you not think, that the way it's worded now, provides the proper balance of that input regarding the local germane situation, I do understand that, with the balance of the elected accountability. [SPEAKER CHANGES]No, and here's my reason why, Representative. I'm perfectly great with the change from 3 to 5, and if this said that the Governor had to choose 1 of the 5, I'm with you. But it says the Governor can just ignore all 5. So we could put in that the bar nominates 10, but if the Governor doesn't have to choose 1 of those 10, what good's the process. Now we hope the Governor would restrict him or herself to those 5, but there's absolutely nothing in there that requires that. [SPEAKER CHANGES]What purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Lucas rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, this bill is identical, the original version, the Senate version of this bill, is original to a bill that I initially filed the House this session. And it dealt strictly with inmate costs. And how we wanted the local folk to have the same level of compensation as the State. That was my intention of the bill. As the bill that's come back now, I don't even recognize to my original bill. I don't recognize this bill. We had no inquiry about our speculation or input about this bill, and I'm sure that Representative Daughtry is doing his very best to clean up this bill, and I respect him for that. I have high respect for representative Daughtry. But this bill now represents some version of Prego of Heinz 57, It's got too much in it. It's all in there. Judges, registered deeds, and some of that's good. But these are all stand alone bills, some of them we've already voted on, and.

I love the first part of the bill, the initial simple part of the bill. I fully support that part but after that it gets too complicated and it's above my pay grade. I am going to have to say No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover represent ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker to comment on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman have afforded to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker remember that the house win ?? section 4 first came to light was in government community and it was an individual bill which at that time only contained 4 senates.And that is a vacancy in the office of district court judge it'll be filled for the unexpired term by the appointment of the Governor and that was it.And at that time, being an attorney, knowing very well the process that have been taking place, I went to the bill sponsors and said I can't live personally with not allowing input from the local board. Because that is how it has been for years, even though we may not be saying that Government is bound by that nomination. I still think we need to put it in there that the local board does have input because I think it's important for the lawyers and the local board to have some input for the Judges they will be going before with their cases. And the sponsors agreed to that. And that amendment was added in the committee. Now that it has come back, it has changed a bit meat and potato kind of guy, like to hit nail on the head. The way I see this if you want to lame the governor and tie his hands to whom he can appoint to fill in the blanks, you can vote against the bill. Because the system we now have, where the board will nominate the three appointees that the Governor has to choose from for a man in effect. If you want to give the Governor the leverage to choose whomever he thinks might be the best person for that position and not be bound by the recommendations of the local board, then you vote for the bill. But at least, either way I'm glad we still have language that would allow input from the local board because I think that is very important. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose the gentleman from Wake represent the ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman have afforded to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr.Speaker. The gentleman from New Hanover with regards have framed the issue exactly as it is.And you can use that for the vote accordingly. I am happy that there is at least provision which allows the local board to provide input but as the gentleman from Cumberland said in his debate that there is absolutely no requirement for the Governor to look at it or even consider it. He can go straight in the round ?? cabinet as they say. And this for those of you who have successfully like the gentleman from union avoided interaction with the legal system, this may not sound that important. But it is because in the end the quality of our judicial system relies on the quality of our judges.And we important that we have a system of checks and balances. And that's what we learn about our government from fourth grade onwards. Checks and balances, I think there may have even been a cartoon about that on Saturday morning cartoons, right after how a bill becomes a law. But checks and balances and important. The system we have now is not perfect and in fact pulls in a body outside of Government, the local board, to play a part in this system. It's not perfect but it does serve as a meaningful check on the power of the Governor.I know our current Governor is going to get good advice from his counselor whom I used to practice law with. Governor Perdue got good advice from her counselor, Governor Easley got good advice from his counselor. They are going to stir him to make the right choice. But I don't know that I trust that for future governors even at the federal level. And I hate to say that the feds are doing something better than we are but there are meaningful checks there. The President for federal judges is required to get the opinion of lawyers. He can pick whoever he/she wants to. But remember, that's with the advise and consent of the senate. An extremely meaningful check on the which would other wise be unfettered power of the President. I don't think we at Legislature want to get in in the business of Judicial confirmations. We already got enough on our plate right now. In absence of that, I think it's absolutely crucial to have a meaningful check on the power of the Governor in appointing judges and because of that unless that ?? we change in the bill, I am gonna have to vote Against.

For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, when I first saw this bill I was really impressed, like my colleagues from Cumberland County. I say it was a bill that I would support because my county had asked us to try to recoup some of this medical cost. And then on the other end of that my registered ?? opposed the bill because of what impact it would have on the registered deed office. So then I walked around, I threw up my hand, what do I do? I'm confused because the bill may be confused with the add on and the registered deeds in the county Board of Commissioners. And so to me, the bill started off as being good and then it started off like a hamburger. So I'm lost now, Mr. Speaker. So if some of the changes could be made in the bill I think it's a good bill. As Representative Glazier mentioned, you can send up five but I don't have to ?? any one of the five, so why send up the five? I'm not obligated to select any of the five, so the bill itself has become too complex. And at this particular point in time, I cannot support that because the register of deed going to be upset if I support it on that end. The county Board of Commissioners going to be upset because I didn't get their costs and I compromised with it. So right now, I can't support the bill in its present form. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 321 on its second reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Seventy having voted in the affirmative and thirty-nine in the negative. House Committee Substitute 3 for Senate Bill 321 passes on its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Senate Bill 341, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 341, a bill to be entitled An Act to Establish an Expedited Process for the Modification of Inter-Basin Transfer Certificates and For Issuance of Inter-Basin Transfer Certificates in the Central Coastal Plain Capacity Use Area and the Coastal Area Counties, and to Amend SL 2013-50, An Act to Promote the Provision of Regional Water and Sewer Services by Transferring Ownership and Operations of Certain Public Water and Sewer Systems, to Make a ?? Water and Sewer District. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Johnston, Representative Daughtry rise? For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Out of respect to Representative Floyd, I will debate this very briefly. The bill does exactly what the bill's summary, it actually discusses and it also does as exactly what the short title explains. This is regards to permitting, in regard to inter-basin transfers. It is only, actually, the language is specifically aimed at streamlining the process and making it more affordable. Roughly it costs about $5 million and about on average of five years or more to actually complete an inter-basin transfer permit, whether a new one or an actual modification. This will actually provide a process that will take less or equal to a year and less than $1 million. So this is a very important regulatory reform measure that has been worked out extensively in coordination with the department and I ask your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Yancey, Representative Presnell rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I ask someone, maybe Leo or someone that has been here for awhile, is this the inter-basin transfer that Mitch Gillespie fought for quite some time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Johnston yield to a question from the lady from Yancey? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding from looking around that is, it is not the bill that he fought. Is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady wish to ask a question or debate the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Has anyone spoke to DNR? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady wish to direct a question towards Representative Millis from Pender County? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Pender yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields.

Has anyone from DENR been informed about this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am, DENR has been. This is actually a DENR bill. It's been done in coordination with the Division. The individual that you actually mentioned is actually understanding of this bill. This is not taking away any aspects of our regulation in regard to regulatory, excuse me, in regard to inter-basin transfers, but rather streamlining the process to be more efficient for the modification of someone who wants to actually transfer water from one basin to another. So no deregulation, just a more efficient permitting process. Hope that answers your question. I'll entertain any more. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So Mitch Gillespie of DENR is fully involved, he understands this, is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Yancey wish to direct the question to the gentleman from Wake, who may be able to answer that? Does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar, yield to the lady from Yancey? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I gladly yield. And let me just assure you, this has nothing to do with the Catawba and the Yadkin and those rivers. What it has to do with is actually the Neuse and the Cape Fear. And what this net effect of this provision will do is allow us, the Western Wake Partners, to make some modifications to a current inter-basin transfer agreement that we have because this area, this metropolitan area, sits right along the ridge between those two basins. We consolidated our water systems, we basically had two water systems in this region. They work very well together. This simply allows the Western Wake Partners, which is a conglomeration of a whole host of water folks, to make some modifications to their inter-basin transfer agreement without having to spend several million dollars and entail about seven or eight additional years. All the public hearings will be held as normally do, but it shortens the process literally by about seven or eight years. I would definitely appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pitt, Representative Brown, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative B. Brown moves to amend the bill on page 15, line 8, by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brown has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this amendment is a very simple amendment, just some clarifying and technical corrections. It's made up of two sections. The first section is some clarifying language particularly dealing with House Bill 488. It only affects Greenville Utility Commission. And then the second part of it is just some technical correction dealing with the severability clause and I urge your support of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? For what purpose does the lady from Buncombe, Representative Fisher, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the amendment sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Pitt yield to the lady from Buncombe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With greater trepidation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Brown. My question is, you may recall a bill with the number 488 that had to do with the moving of the water system from the city of Asheville to the Metropolitan Sewerage District, the MSD, in Asheville. My question is, first of all, does this exclude Greenville from 488? From the effects of 488? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As I said in my presentation of the amendment this actually deals with 488. Presently, Greenville is already excluded from 488 because we do not meet the population threshold of 120,000 people. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a follow up, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady wish to ask an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you, Representative Brown. My next question is do you know of any other city in North Carolina other than Asheville that that would affect? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What would affect? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That 488 would affect? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's really not germane to this bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well it is, in term of [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wait, the Chair would ask the members to direct the conversation through the Chair. Does the lady wish to ask an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you agree that inasmuch as the amendment that you have offered relates to 488, this question relates to 488? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I suppose so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then

Does the lady wish to ask an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I Do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, then do you know of any other city that might need to run a similar amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not and nor would I be privy to that information nor would I have looked into that information. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion for the debate on the amendment. For what purpose does that representative from Wilson, Representative Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I rise rise in favor of this amendment. This is important for our- [SPEAKER CHANGES] the lady has the floor to debate the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I'm sorry. This is important for our green bill and we have good support from the city council in that area and we ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion on the amendment? Representative Catlin is this on the bill or on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] On the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seeing no discussion on the amendment the question before the house Amendment One, sent forth by Representative Brown so many as favor of the Brown Amendment will vote Aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 105 having voted in favor of the amendment and three in the negative, the amendment is adopted. We’re now back on the bill for what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover Representative Catlin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now just to make you aware that one of the driving forces behind this bill was for coastal counties. We have intervasive transfer problems in our coastal regions, particularly Brunswick County, Representative Ilers district, that a five foot high hill in the middle of the county will make it where you can’t run a water line from one side of the county to the other. Fortunately my county got grandfathered in otherwise we would not be able to take water from the river and pump it to the beach or take sewage from the beach and communities and put it in the treatment plan in the river so that’s one of the very important part of this bill. It helps the intervasive transfer on the coastal communities it does have very almost invisible coastal ??. so I urge your support of the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Henderson, Representative McGrady rise?[SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I completely agree with the representative from New Hanover County. I think we’ve got three different water systems in this state and you've got to recognize the coast is different than the mountains, it's different then Piedmont. This is a well-crafted bill, bottom line. I'm not a big proponent of ?? and transfers but you need to recognize that the coastal plane has some issues that need to be appropriately addressed and this bill does it and I would recommend your vote for the bill[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the bill? If not, the question before the house is the house committee substitute for Senate Bill 341 on its second reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote Aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 86 having voted in the affirmative and twenty three in the negative house committee substitute for Senate Bill 341 passes it's second reading and will without objection be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 341 on its third reading. So many as favor the passage will say Aye. Those opposed will say no. The Ayes have it and the house committee substitute for Senate bill 341 passes on its third reading. The bill will be engrossed and sent to the governor. Excuse me, return to the senate. Senate Bill 444. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 444, bill to be entitled An Act to Require The Constituent Institutions of the University of North Carolina to Recognize the Cherokee Language as the Language Which a Student may use to Satisfy a Foreign Language Course Requirement for Degree Completion. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Chatham Representative McManus rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] This

Senator Brock’s bill, and when he presented it in education, he told about his motivation for creating the bill. And it came from talking with a group of middle school students and said he routinely asked students what they think would make a good bill, and this idea actually came from a Cherokee youth who said, “Why would they not let you use Cherokee as your language when you’re going to college, the language that you need to graduate?” He thought it was a great idea and so it became his bill. This would require that the UNC constituent universities develop and implement a policy to allow Cherokee to be used to qualify as their foreign language, which is kind of odd, but foreign language requirement for graduation purposes. I am an enrolled member of the eastern band of Cherokee. My grandfather was actually one of the Cherokee youth who was sent to a retraining school to take the Cherokee out of him, and they were punished for speaking their language. The Cherokee language almost died out, and they’re now teaching it in schools again and is actually a course you can take at Western Carolina University. It’s not offered at other constituent universities, but it can be taken through Western. And many Cherokee youth are now taking it in an emerging program in the schools in Cherokee on the reservation, and if they came to college and could show competency in that language, it would count as their foreign language, exactly like a child who came competent in Spanish or French. I would ask your support for this bill, please. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowen, Representative Warren, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to actually make a comment that I think it’s very ironic that we’re talking about qualifying the language of a Native American for a foreign language. I support the bill, and I think it’s a good effort. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Buncombe, Representative Fisher, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill just briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think you heard be say this before, and I just want to refresh your memories. This, I think, is a very worthy bill of passage, and one reason I believe that is because I have visited the school where they teach the Cherokee language. And it’s very impressive because when you walk in there is a line that you see on the floor, and when you cross over that line you’re speaking Cherokee from then on. And it’s an incredible way to preserve this heritage, and I think this is really an affirmative way to show how important it is to have preserve that language. So I do support the bill, and I hope that you will join me in that. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 444 on its second reading. So many as favored the passage of the bill will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 107 having voted in the affirmative and two in the negative. Senate Bill 444 passes on its second reading and will without objection be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Brandon, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I looked at the wrong thing. I need re-vote in aye, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded has having voted aye. Same, Representative Farmer-Butterfield, same for the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Senate Bill 341, aye instead of no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as having voted aye on Senate Bill 341. The question before the House is the passage of Senate Bill 444 on its third reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed will say no. The ayes have it. The bill passes on its third reading and will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 454, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 454, a bill that’s been titled an act to clarify the authority of the Gasoline and Oil Inspection Board to regulate petroleum device technicians. General Assembly of North Carolina next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose- Is the gentleman from Wake, Representative ??, handling this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I suppose I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know the details of this bill, and it actually is a good bill. I believe we had it in transportation a few weeks

weeks ago and it’s a fairly simple bill and as I recall basically what we are doing is we are just setting up this board and doing this fee which they were already being doing. So we are simply legitimizing something they have already been doing for about 15 or 20 years. So it’s a simple bill, appreciate your support. [Speaker Changes] Further discussion further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 484 in its second reading. As many as favor the passage of bill will vote aye and those who oppose the bill will vote No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 105 have voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative. Senate bill 454 passes on its second reading and will without objection be read the third time. [Speaker Changes] North Carolina enacts [Speaker Changes] Further discussion further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of senate 454 in its third reading. So many who favor the passage will say “Aye” and those oppose will say “No”. The Ayes have it. Senate bill 454 passes its third reading and will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Senate Bill 485 the clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] committee substitute for senate bill 485 has been built to entirely enact to eliminate the duplicative the reporting requirement regarding personal service contacts with University of North Carolina to allow the board of governors to provide for the implementation and expansion. [Speaker Changes] The clerk will suspend. The gentleman from Catawba, Rep Setzer is recognized to explain the bill [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr Speaker, Ladies and gentlemen of the house. The clerk almost explained the entire bill in its explanation in the title had the Mr Speaker allowed that to happen I should have allowed to say less than what I am saying now. But the only article that allowed the board of governors to implement and expand the use of Electronic commerce infrastructure and it will provide tax exemption for improvement made in the real property owned by authorities and fraternities owning the university property. Actually, there is no opposition to the bill and I would appreciate your support. [Speaker Changes] Actually members the bill will be temporarily displaced now. But that was a great dress rehearsal Rep Setzer. Thank you. Senate Bill 501. The clerk will read. [Speaker Changes] House committee substitute number 2 for Senate Bill 501 a bill to entirely enact and modify the definition of all terrain vehicle to reflect the changes in the types of All Terrain Vehicles sold in North Carolina. and joint legislate the oversight committee on general government. North Carolina enacts. [Speaker Changes] For What purpose does the gentlemen from Union Representative Arp rise? [Speaker Changes] To record as voting No on Senate bill 305 [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen would be recorded as voting No on Senate bill 305. Rep Arp. For What purpose does the gentlemen from McDowell Representative Dobson rise? [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr Speaker. I would like to be recorded as voting Aye on 454. I was in the chamber. Senate bill 454. [Speaker Changes] As voting aye [Speaker Changes] Aye [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen will be recorded as voting Aye and tell me the bill number again please [Speaker Changes] 454 [Speaker Changes] 454. [Speaker Changes] For What purpose does the gentlemen from Rowan, Representative Warren rise? [Speaker Changes] I would like to be recorded as voting No on Senate Bill 305 [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen would be recorded as having voted No on Senate bill 305. Senate bill 501. I believe Rep Daughtry gentlemen form Johnston will be handling this bill. Further discussion further. For What purpose does the gentlemen from Cabbarus, Representative Pittman rise? [Speaker Changes] Trying to respond to what you have got [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen may explain the bill [Speaker Changes] I was supposed to be running this bill but evaded to it [??] is going to happen. I think he has something to do with that. I don’tknow. Section 1 of the bill alright section of the bill is to update out statutes regarding golf carts and ATVs to include new designs and models of ATVs not recognized by the existing statutory language and by the rest of it because I didn’t have the time to look at it I appreciate it But I would support that part of the bill anyways , Thank you [Speaker Changes] For What purpose does the gentlemen from Onslow, Representative Cleveland rise? [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes]The gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill [Speaker Changes] The second part of the bill contains the bills that we have passed several months ago in the house about a month or two concerning

oversight committee for general government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the bill? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 501 on its second reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 100 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, Senate Bill 501 passes on its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the bill? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 501 on its third reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will say Aye, those opposed will say No. The Ayes have it. Senate Bill 501 passes on its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Senate Bill 626, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 626, a bill that has been entitled to enact to recodify and amend the existing law enacted to assist owners in recovering lost pets, relieve overcrowding at animal shelters, facilitate adoptions from animal shelters, and to provide for improved enforcement of that law by making it part of the Animal Welfare Act, and to establish a cap on the reimbursement amount available from the spay/neuter program. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Buncombe, Representative Ramsey, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, this is an agency bill. The commissioner asks our support of this bill. What this bill will do is improve enforcement components of our animal welfare law by transferring that authority from the Department of Health and Human Services to NCDA. It allows for better enforcement of the current 72 hour holding period for animals picked up by animal control, to go forward and those animals may be ID'd and then their rightful owner may be found if that's possible. It provides for better allocation of our spay and neuter funds that help reduce our unwanted pet population, does several other things. I'd be happy to answer any questions that members may have. I think Representative Harrison does have an amendment; I am not opposed to that amendment, and I don't think the department is either. It is my understanding that the Senate does not oppose her amendment as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Harrison, rise? [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 one, line eight by rewriting that line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this will add a new section six to this animal welfare bill that deals with the confinement of animals in vehicles. We had legislation on this that passed unanimously in Judiciary B earlier in this session and this is a provision that was in this bill. It had a healthy debate in committee. It simply clarifies our state law that allows rescue personnel to rescue animals that are suffering or are trapped in a vehicle. And there's some question about whether the state law currently allows that. But there are many local ordinances that have been adopted, but it's not clear that the state statute allows for this. We've had several high-profile deaths of service dogs in hot cars, and I could cite you statistics, but I don't want to keep going on this debate on how temperatures affect cars whether it's sunny or not. So I would like your support. As Representative Ramsey indicated, the Senate sponsors do support the bill; the AKC supports the bill; we had wide bipartisan support on this legislation that was filed earlier this session, and I urge your support of this important animal welfare provision. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Lincoln, Representative Saine, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with Representative Harrison that this is a good amendment. It is something that had great discussion in Judiciary B, simply makes more sense out of the law so that first responders can respond. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Chowan, Representative Steinburg, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the amendment. I would like to .... [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I don't mean to be so rude. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. I didn't mean to jump all over that. I am also rising to speak in favor of the amendment. We, in the last couple of weeks, have lost a few dogs locked in cars, so I think this amendment...[AUDIO ENDS]

Very timely and much needed for clarification so I encourage everyone to support the amendment, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is amendment number one set forth by Representative Harrison so many as favor the adoption of the amendment vote aye, those opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 99 having voted in the affirmative and two in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Now back on discussion of the bill, further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of senate bill 626 on its second reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 98 having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative, senate bill 626 passes its second reading and it will remain on the calendar. Members of the amendment changed the title. House bill 618, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for house bill 618 the bill ?? enacted to amend the firearm restoration law by shortening the time period a person must wait to petition for restoration of the firearm rights and by providing that a person who has more than one nonviolent felony may petition for restoration of firearm rights after waiting an additional period of time ?? ?? of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman this bill is about changing the timeframe to restore the opportunity for convicted felons of nonviolent felonies to be able to apply to have their rights back. A few years ago you used to be able to, after you served your sentence, five years later you automatically got your rights back if it was a nonviolent felony. You didn’t have to do anything, you just got your rights back automatically. Few years ago the law was changed, and they said you have to now wait 20 years and then you have to go to a judge and pay a fee and apply to get your rights back. What it didn’t do was grandfather those folks that had already had their rights restored that now lose them again because of this 20 year timeframe and this bill, I initiated this bill because of just such an individual who got caught up in this thing who’s now married, has a kid to take care of and everything else and he had to give his guns up when they changed that law. The situation now, what this bill will do will knock it from 20 years down to 10 years. It raises the fee from 200 dollars to 250 dollars when you apply, so if a felon has not been convicted of a violent felony, after he’s been out of trouble, hasn’t had any trouble with the law for 10 years, he can pay 250 dollars and go in front of a judge who will make a determination if he gets his rights back to own a weapon. So again this is for nonviolent felonies and it also does not include drugs. If it’s a drug dealer or a drug user, even though it may have been nonviolent, it’s not included under this so they still are not gonna be able to do it. So I think this is fair, ten years is a fair waiting period, and I hope that you will support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and let me start off by saying to Representative Speciale and to the judiciary B committee chairs, appreciate the work that was done in getting the drug offenses out of the bill, which I think was important. I still oppose the bill for the reasons that I stated in JB other than

[Speaker Changes] the drug issues and let me explain why. I mean, let’s sort of be clear that the sole purpose of the bill is to get firearms into the hands of felons faster. And that bothers me immensely. But I do understand the point that the representative is making. And the question becomes sort of what period of time, and I have an objection to the change, but my bigger objection is to the second part. So the smaller objection is, we’re moving from twenty to ten. I don’t know whether ten, or fifteen, or twenty is a good time. But what I do know, and I know representative Jordan spoke to this a little differently in committee, is that we don’t allow past offenses to be expunged until fifteen years or longer. If we’re not gonna allow past offenses to be expunged for fifteen, fifteen strikes me as certainly the reasonable period of time to allow a prior felon to get a firearm, or petition for one. Now there are differences and I make no bones about it, and thats why thats not my major objection. It is an objection and I think because the ten years is arbitrary, we have fifteen in the law for its functions, it ought to be the same kind of thing. My bigger objection is the issue of multiple felonies. And I don’t much care whether it was violent, I mean I think its good that we have the violence and the drug cases out of here, because the original bill allowed drug offenses to be in. If someone has multiple felonies on their record, and this prior law said, “You know people make a mistake and you get the right to get your firearm rights restored after you’ve fulfilled your sentence if you haven’t made any others", and I think that’s fair. But when people make multiple felonies, these are not misdemeanors, they have been convicted of multiple felonies, and not in the same transactions, because that is taken care of. These have to be in multiple transactions. If someone has done that, you know, we end up waving our constitutional rights in a lot of the criminal law, when we forfeit our right or we give up our right to freedom because we violated the law, we give up our right on lots of constitutional rights when we go to excess. There is nothing in the second amendment that at all requires states to give former felons, let alone repeated felons, their firearms back. And from a safety point of view, I have real concerns about repeated felons having access. There may be ways to do it, and there may be limited ways to do so. The circumstance Representative Speciale brought to the committee may have been one of those. The problem is that we are now opening it up to allow petitions, and I recognize that the judge could say no. But we are allowing petitions across the state, with the political issue that is firearms these days, for anybody with multiple felonies. This doesn’t even say two prior, you could have eight prior, and this opens it up to it. Well I guess for me, thats a safety issue. And there is a point at which our concern for public safety has to trump other concerns. And I guess thats my biggest objection to this bill. I could live with the ten years, even though I disagree with it. I probably even could live with it if we put two felons in with the maintaining the fifteen year timeframe. But I can’t for the life of me, see a good public policy reason to allow someone who could have three, four, five, six, seven felonies on their record, to be suggesting that we want to give them any right to get their firearms back. I think that’s something they forfeited by committing repeated felonies against the public. Thank you. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Horn rise? [Speaker Changes] To ask bill sponsor a question. [Speaker Changes] Does the gentlemen from Craven yield to the gentlemen from Union? [Speaker Changes] I yield. [Speaker Changes] He yields. [Speaker Changes] Actually, Representative Glazier may have answered my question, but I’d rather hear it from the bill sponsor. Does this bill allow someone convicted of, and you mentioned in the bill digest simple possession, but multiple times (one after another), can they then get their firearms rights back? Is that what this bill allows? [Speaker Changes] If it has anything to do with drugs, no. Is that what you just asked? [Speaker Changes] That’s what I asked. It mentions in the summary, I was just trying to read the summary, It says felony possession is a nonviolent crime, its not under the...

The first group; trafficking, manufacturing, etc. Possession multiple times is a non violent crime if you are convicted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's been removed from this bill. If there's any drug relationship, at all, then he cannot apply. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from ?? rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to ask representative specialty a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Craven yield to the gentleman from ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is one question that may help clarify and I agree with your answer. We've got the drug offences out. What it does allow however, is someone to apply with multiple felonies on their record. Outside of violent felonies or drug felonies, so it dos limit check ??, forgery, any felony that's out there, security fraud; pick a felony. It does allow anyone with multiple felonies, unlimited felonies, to apply. Would that be correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct but you can explain to me how that relate to his gun rights. Why he should be denied his gun. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Ash represent Jordan rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Craven yield to the gentleman from Ash? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] We've had some discussion here about multiple felonies. If I could direct your attention to page 2, line 17. When it says the court may grant a petition. Does that mean the judge has discretion and can decide based on the specific circumstances of the case, whether or not to grant that petition? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. It's up to the judge. It's not automatic. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the majority leader representative of ?? rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may make his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This bill has generated a lot of interest and a lot of controversy and it's something I think we need to discuss a little further. I move that we take it off today's calendar and re-calender it for Tuesday, July 23rd [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without rejection? So awarded [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 831 the court will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comity sub two for house relate 31 An act to revive for the education of children in private psychiatric residential treatment facilities. ?? of North Carolina is next. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Th lady from Wake represent of ?? is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker at this time I would like to put forward a motion, however. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady is recognized to state her motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to put forward the motion to remove from today's calender house bill 831 and put it on tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without rejection? So awarded. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Conference report for bill 232. The court will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President and the senate: this is the speaker of the house of representatives; this is a ?? form to resolve the difference between the senate and the house of representatives on houses bill 232 on ?? to make technical and other changes to the state health plan for teachers who have stated poorly statues is required by the state health plan. The ?? recommend the house of representatives and senate should dock this report. Confirmation of the senate ?? for the house of representatives ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Nash representative of Collins is recognized for a motion and then to debate that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm gonna make a motion that we accept this conference report . If you remember several days ago, and I don't remember now if it was this week or last week, we had a conference bill just like this entitled; technical changes to small group health plan. And we changed the date because the President has backed up one of the requirements and we didn't want the small employers to have to undergo that extra expense of meeting the requirements of the ACA before 2015. This is the very same issue except it saves us money as a general assembly because it does the same thing for the state health plan. So I would ask that you adopt this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowain representative of Waren rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the speaker for clarification [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to direct the question to the chair or to the sponser of the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may stat his inquiry [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, did I hear the house majority leader reference the last bill to make motion ----end of clip---

7:30? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, the motion was made to simply recalendar House bill 618 to the session next Tuesday, there was not a specific time, it would be to the ?? time of session on that Tuesday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me sir, I thought I heard him say Tuesday, 7 30, the date. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it's the 23rd, Rep. Warren. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just scared me, that's all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the conference report for House bill 232? For what purpose does the gentleman from Caberras, Rep. Pittman rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think I can direct it to Rep. Collins, just for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman wishes to direct a question to Rep. Collins, Rep. Collins, does the gentleman yield to the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I noticed changing to January 2015 because of the change that's been made in Washington, I've heard news reports that there may be an effort to change the other part relating to individuals and put it off a year, so would it necessitate us maybe coming back to make a change in that if that happens, if they do it after we've left for the summer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to respond to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now if there's a change in individual health plans, that would not have an effect on the state health plan because the state health plan is a group health plan. So we wouldn't have to change this particular piece of legislation at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the motion to adopt the conference report for House bill 232. So many as favor the motion will vote "aye", those opposed will vote "no", the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 97 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the conference report for House bill 232 is adopted. And the Senate will be so notified. Senate bill 379, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute number 2 for Senate bill 379, a bill to entitle an act authorizing economic development incentive programs, to utilize funds to support new and expanded natural gas service, and to support propane gas service for agricultural products. General assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Rutherford, Rep. Hager, is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is a bill that came over from Senator Jackson, and Senator Jackson is concerned as we all are about lowering energy costs for our agricultural farms, especially our big farms, our tobacco farms. So what we want to do is develop an incentive program that allows the expansion of natural gas and propane in some of these larger farms, specifically in the east. Unfortunately, Rutherford county doesn't have these large farms so we wouldn't be a beneficiary to this, but if you look at the bill that's basically what it does, and I'll be happy to stand for any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House committee substitute 2 for Senate bill 379 on its second reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote "aye", those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 96 having voted in the affirmative and 3 in the negative, the bill passes on its second reading and will, 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 for Senate bill 379 on its third reading. So many as favor the passage of the bill will say "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed will say "no". The "aye"s have it, and Senate bill 379 passes on its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Members will go back up to the last bill for the day which is Senate bill 485, Rep. Setzer had the floor before the Chair so rudely interrupted you, does the gentleman desire further comment on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I'd appreciate your support on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate bill 485 on its second reading . So many as favor the passage of the bill will vote "aye", those opposed will vote "no", the clerk will open the vote. Representatives Hamilton and Brisson, do the team members wish to record on this bill? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 95 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, Senate bill 485 passes on its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time.

Johnson called on as for the session Friday for a purpose of the time on represented the stress statement: 3.1 hour to Dulles Airport of us can only reported as a free 41 purposes-white grid riled address, Julia only a couple in, labeled it was added as a separate times in a fight that sent centers and why a person was it is the data was the report is made of the human eye letter urging recently reported today, was estimated 89-for the house's passage of senate bill 48, 13 cities by the national debt will site at these places a time not have billed as a starting will be partisan ?? is taken 1% at S & easy for us to the right times and having the denial of senate bill 6.3 and one is betting on at the purses and procedures and for ?? and sat Thailand, said in a related matters and the rest have better than that of this agreement does recognize the fact remains for 1% of high-speed of the house of them, said last week of the latter-day as the stone, less effective in the house, literature, as things planned I could get out of the assailant, about 1¢ in hi, delegation time when dollars from four men can't jump of the decade, since any other nonprofit inaction in season, sports the benefit of the wonders of a lifetime, fire officials for his operation of the homeless ninths ms project coordinator ¬the course of events and some of the state is all that calls for secure one one or higher than his all-ones without the film and also complimented a program time that of single-season is now working as a mechanic with Aston Martin will announce times edition of the one that the cottage city has gone back, and is confident, Judy Collins and this works program where he was given a very nice guy talking to the CDs and that what the deal was announced at the time the defense cards-budget also designers working as a surprise, and everyone sports and fitness-Mets in person, correct them in half and past sat in on some of the house with the securities and just right, that infants to share that has the mental-to-person cost of shutting the the city hired me about the copy was for the sole designs demonstrate their is one that is the posse in this province of the last event and there is something the Seattle here in October, turned on the issue of the 19th and 21 aces, are here on the issue and the prevailing fathers to North Carolina resign as the city contents are doing a fine of some of the sport's nothing was done was to have made within a shot of the increasing amount to about and see that I'm-and five hits of the state's hands for feminism hundred-all have the disadvantage at the center of causes this from the war has times of staff and CD- OP has estimated that 80% of the press should have gone back, actually and why he cares and running time: one purpose as the fellow at the other side of life for us or did I miss him as a former ms ad for those members or ask of resolving the tracking bill would allow the concepts action hero for 1504 comforts was a personal ad for more interested in timeouts for a pointer is a privilege base DN 3 minutes for one person. He is the Internet are ?? …….....

A new issue of The Triangle Business Journal came out today. I hope you'll take a look at it. It includes the report from the Senate for world university rankings. This organization uses the Nobel Prize winners research, publications and research grant awards, as their rankings. Duke ranked 25th in the world. UNC ranked 34th in the world. But among public universities, UNC ranked tenth best public university in the world. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. The gentleman from Stanly, Representative, for what purpose, does the gentleman from Haywood, Representative Queen rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be recorded as an aye on Senate Bill 321. Excuse me, as a no on Senate Bill 321. [SPEAKER CHANGED] Was the gentleman for it before he was against it? The gentleman will be recorded as voting no on 321. The gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr, is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the House do now adjourn, subject to the ratification of bills, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees and modifications of the calendar, until Thursday, July 18th, 2013 at 10AM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr moves to adjourn, subject to ratification of bills, receipt of message from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, receipt of conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees and modifications of the calendar. Seconded by Representative Lewis to reconvene Thursday, July 18th at 10:00AM. All in favor, please signify by saying aye. Opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.