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 18, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members, please take your seats. Visitors, please retire from the Chamber. The Sergeant of Arms will close the door. Members and visitors, please silence all cellular phones and electronic devices. The prayer will be offered by Representative Burt Jones. Members and visitors in the gallery, please stand and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members and guests, will you join me in prayer. Our Father and our all mighty God, maker of Heaven and earth, we, your people, humbly bow before your throne acknowledging you as the creator and sustainer of life and that life being eternal. Let us come into your presence with praise and thanksgiving. Thankful indeed for your grace and your mercies that are new every morning. We pray for wisdom and discernment that we may honor you in what we do and also the manner in which we do it. Help us to love good, to hate sin, and to know your word that we would see the difference. We pray that righteousness would prevail as your word tells us that righteousness exalts a nation. Lord help us that we be exalted and not condemned. And as we extoll the virtues of liberty, help us not be deceived by the sins of license. We pray for understanding and courage to speak the truth, but also to do so in love, as love will cover a multitude of sins. Help us to be kind to one another, tender hearted, forgiving one another even as God in Christ offers forgiveness to us according to your word. And father, as we offer this prayer, we are indeed thankful that you have ordained our steps that we may freely assemble and offer prayer in this legislative body as our nation has sanctioned and practiced from its beginning. May it always be according to your will. Great is thy faithfulness. Help us, your people, to be thankful. With each one here praying in their own way, I offer my prayer in the name of my Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the Journal for Wednesday, July 17, 2013, has been examined and found to be correct. I move its approval as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the Journal for July 17th be approved as written. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The Journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials or papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House? Ratification of bills and resolutions. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Raleigh Clerk report the following bills to be ratified for presentation to the Governor. Senate Bill 73, An Act to Require Local Work for ?? Aborts Competitive Select Process. Senate Bill 323, An Act to Allow ?? Applicants for a Position ?? Direct the Service Benefits and Relocation Expenses. Senate Bill 444, An Act to Require for Constituent Institution University of North Carolina to Recognize Cherokee Language. Senate Bill 454, An Act to Clarify the Charge of Gasoline Oil Inspection Board. Senate Bill 485, An Act to Eliminate Duplicate Reporting Requirement Regarding Personal Service Contracts to the University of North Carolina. Senate Bill 488, An Act to Amend the Nursing Home Administrative Act to Increase Certain Fees. House Bill 194, An Act to Allow North Carolina Veterinary Board to Accept Program for Assessment of Veterinary Education. House Bill 232, An Act to Make Technical and Other Changes to the State Health Plan. House Bill 636, An Act to Direct North Caroline Geographic Information Recording. House Bill 646, An Act to Prohibit a County or a City from Enforcing an Ordinance that Regulates the Trimming or Removal of Trees on Property Owned or Operated by Public ?? Authority. House Bill 701, An Act Providing that Agents to a Purchase Information Technology Goods. And the following bills due to ratify and proper enrolled presented to Office of Secretary of State. Senate Bill 229, An Act to Authorize the Town of Ocean Isle. Senate Bill 288, An Act Concerning Filing of Vacancies on Board of Commissions for Wake County, and House Bill 537, An Act to Provide for Four Year Terms Rather Than Six Year Terms for the Members of the ?? on Board of Education. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker.

Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I just [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve just been noticing a dearth of Senate calendars. Is there some reason we don’t get them passed out on the desk here lately. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, will the gentleman please restate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m trying to find out why we’re not getting, every day for all years, we always get a House calendar and a Senate calendar, and we don’t get the Senate calendar anymore. Is there any reason why we don’t get it anymore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There’s at least one member that thinks it’s irrelevant, I’m not really sure why, [LAUGHTER] Representative Michaux, but we will check on it. I’ve been gone for a day and my gavel was replaced. [LAUGHTER AND APPLAUSE] The House be at ease. [PAUSE] Chapter bills be noted. Messages from the Senate, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 15, a bill to be entitled an act to facilitate the use of vehicles exclusively for law enforcement, fire fighting and other emergency response by the division of parks and recreation or the department of environment and natural resources. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar, 36B. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Two motions pertaining to today’s calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I would move that House Bill 392, which is the first bill, be moved to the end of the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And that Senate Bill 337, which is the third bill, be moved to just before that one, at the end of the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Calendar, House Resolution 1120, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Resolution 1020, a House Resolution honoring the life and memory of Tony Clayton, Summey, the House resolves [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeill, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I ask that the resolution, HR1020 be read in its entirety. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whereas Tony Clayton Summey was born on May 4, 1961 in Davidson County to Clayton and Lois Summey and whereas Tony Clayton Summey attended Fairgrove Elementary School in Davidson County and graduated from East Davidson High School in 1979. And whereas Tony Clayton Summey and Dena Tucker were joined in matrimony at Grubbs Grove Baptist Church in Denton, North Carolina on September 4, 1980. And whereas Tony Clayton Summey had two children, Megan Summey born January 13, 1986 and Andrew Summey born on November 18, 1989. And whereas Tony Clayton Summey had a lifelong dream to be a law enforcement officer. And whereas Tony Clayton Summey continued to work a full-time job as a truck driver while attending basic law enforcement training at night. And whereas Tony Clayton Summey completed basic law enforcement training and was sworn in as deputy sheriff for the Randolph County Sheriff’s Office on July 20, 1999. And whereas Tony Clayton Summey became a valued member of the Sheriff’s Office and gained a reputation as a trusted and respected law enforcement officer. And whereas on April 27, 2003, Tony Clayton Summey received a call to investigate a domestic violence complaint and execute a warrant for arrest for a suspect in that case. And whereas while executing his sworn duties and during the course of that investigation, Tony Clayton Summey died while after being shot by the suspect. Now therefore be it resolved by the House of Representatives, section 1, the House of Representative honors the life of Tony Clayton Summey and expresses its appreciation for the service he rendered to his community, state and nation, by giving the greatest sacrifice of all. Section 2, the House of Representatives extends its deepest sympathy to the family of Tony Clayton Summey on

The 10th anniversary of his death section 3 French [??] shall transmit the certified copy of this resolution to the family of Tony Clayton Sami and section 4 this resolution is effective upon the [??]. [Speaker Changes] Representative Miguel is recognized right now to debate the resolution [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker and fellow representatives of the chamber. Somehow you may remember that I mentioned Deputy Tony Sami’s name during the debate on Senate bill 306 back in early June. That started me thinking that this was his tenth anniversary of his death. He was killed in 2003. I thought it was very fitting then it will be a good opportunity to recognize his love, his memory and the sacrifices he made for his fellow men. After consulting with the family, it was decided that I would do a house resolution honoring the love and memory of deputy Tony Sami . You would have known the reading of the resolution some of Tony’s history. Time today is too short to say all that could be said and should be said about the life of Tony Sami. I will start by saying that from the first day that Tony started his job as a deputy Sheriff, every one that came in contact with him all his fellow officers knew that Tony had found his mutual love and he would make an excellent law enforcement officer. It was his last calling. Something that he wanted to do. Tony soon became a valued member of the Sheriff’s wife and trusted deputy in his community. Since his death many have told stories about Tony’s type and they would check on them on neighboring widows and aging loved ones even when he was off duty. And he didn’t have to do it. He had other things in his life. When he was on duty . when time allowed. Tony was a dedicated husband and provider for his wife and children and Tony never met a stranger and he would strike up a conversation with anyone at any time about any subject. Tony was described as loving, soft hearted and selfless. He was known in his community as a husband, a daddy, a deputy, a friend and a neighbor. I worked with Tony from 1999 until his death. In 2003. I can tell you first hand that Tony Sami was a hard working dedicated loyal and trust worthy man. Tony was a big man Sometimes his size was a little bit intimidating to you. But I Can tell you from knowing him and all the people that know him will tell you that Tony’s love for his fellow men and the big heart he had was much bigger than the size of his body. And looking back over my 32 year career in law enforcement no single day has made me sadder than the Sunday April 27th 2003, the day Tony Sami laid down his life while serving his mankind and community. And that’s day God called him home to be with him. In law enforcement we have what we call ten codes. And ten codes are basically the codes we use each code we use has a different meaning. I don’t think it’s a any small coincidence that house resolution 1020. The ten code for it and Randolph county is Where are you and what is your location. I don’t think any body in this chamber or anybody that knew Tony Sami can doubt where Tony Sami 1020 yesterday. Tony Sami is in heaven. Tony Sami was a good man. Tony Sami’s funeral was on Thursday May the 1st 2003 and I will be for ever honored that myself and two other officers of the Sheriff’s office were honored to be able to sing at Tony’s funeral. As the son of how well Tony was loved in his community, all of the officers and citizens that showed for the funeral even for a small portion of the them could not be contained by the church and many were made to stand outside. The Van of the Police vehicles, fire trucks and every thing going from the church to cemetery stretched for miles. It’s even been busier as the funeral procession was reaching the cemetery some 20 miles away vehicles were still leaving the Church where the Ceremony was held.. I would close by encouraging each of you to go the officer town memorial page can be very easily found on the internet to read more about the life of Deputy Tony Sami, there is a blog page on there.

See where through the years where many people have blogged about Tony Summy and what he means to them. I also will close by encouraging you, if you every go to Washington D.C., go to the fallen officers memorial there in Washington D.C. where his name is listed. And take just take a minute and pause, and say thank you officer Summy for your sacrifice. Mr. Speaker, I ?? the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the adoption of House Resolution 1020. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 107 in the affirmative, none in the negative. House Resolution 1020 has been adopted. The resolution be ordered printed. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the chair would like to extend our welcome and continued condolences to Deana Tucker Summy, the widow of officer Tucker, of officer Summy. Megan Summy, the daughter, and friend Adam Early. Andrew Summy, son, and wife Ocean Summy. Reeva Tucker, mother of Deana Summy. Colonel Fred Rutlidge, Chief Deputy of Randolph County Sheriff's office. And Major Johnny Hussy, Randolph County Sherriff's officer and first officer on the scene after the shooting. Welcome and please accept our condolences. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 480 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee ?? for Senate Bill 480. A bill to be to be entitled 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] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? displace the bill please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is the rules chair going to allow us to get anything on the calendar today? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 547 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee ?? for Senate Bill 547. A bill to be entitled, An Act To Amend The Statutes Governing Guaranteed Energy Savings Contracts For Governmental Units. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager please state your purpose. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Rules Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules Chair is it okay to do this one? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Senate Bill 547 deals with energy conservation audits and implementation of the findings. Specifically this bill addresses how do you handle the contracts, who handles the contracts, how are they awarded, what kind of guaranteed savings do you have and how are they dealt with. Part of the bill that we amended in Senate Finance allows the universities that have engineering curriculum to specifically have energy curriculums in those engineering curriculums, to do the audits themselves also, those are the North Carolina Sate and UNC Charlotte. And I ask for you to vote green on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I filed a companion bill to this earlier and I think it's a very good bill. Right now this is performance contracting where energy service companies guarantee energy savings and they get paid based on their performance. And if they don't get the savings that they're supposed to get they don't get paid. They have to actually give the money back. But the process is sort of a design build process where these contractors have to go ahead and do their design and make all their guarantees before they get selected and so it could cost them up to $100,000 per project to do that.

And ultimately that additional cost that they get gets put into the future project. So what this does is a qualification-based selection where you select the top two qualified energy service companies, and then you work out the details. So it should be a savings for everybody, and I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Representative Hager a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, you indicated that schools that had schools of engineering were being asked to do their own audit on this. Why was A&T State University included in that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, I guess because no one was there to represent A&T. I mean within that time, NC State already had the opportunity to do it. This bill would have sunsetted that opportunity. They knew I was, as you know, I was intimately involved with UNC-Charlotte, so I knew they had it. It may have just been ignorance on my part. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, may I ask him a further question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you allow us to amend this to but A&T State University in there? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Fortunately, Representative Harris and I were just speaking on that, and I think she's going to be working on that Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 547 on its second reading. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 103 having voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 547 has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Senate Bill 151, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 151, a bill entitled to enact to amend marine fishery laws and amend the laws governing the construction of terminal groins and clarify the cities may enforce ordinances within the state's public trust areas. North Carolina General Assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, we had a wonderful vote on this yesterday. The only reason why we're actually hearing this again for a third reading is because the title of the bill was amended due to a friendly amendment that was offered. I urge your support again for this bill. Please vote green. Please vote Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 151 on its third reading. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote No. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. Representative Arp will be recorded as having voted Aye. 73 having voted in the affirmative with Representative Arp's vote, 33 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 151 has passed its third reading. The bill will be engrossed and returned to the Senate by special messenger. Senate Bill 305, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 305, a bill that's been entitled to enact to improve the public/private partnership by which the Division of Motor vehicles issues motor vehicle titles and registrations. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House be at ease. Ladies and gentlemen, we'll temporarily displace this one. We're determining in Representative Lewis' absence if one of the committee chairs may be able to carry the bill. Therefore, we will move forward to Senate Bill 321, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute Number 3 for Senate Bill 321, a bill that's been entitled to enact to cap reimbursements for counties, to make additional provisions to payment for medical services provided by ?? county jails to ?? utilize ?? Medicaid bill, which will reasonably divide the vacancies in the district court judge ?? appointed by the Governor ?? require ?? to maintain regular office hours, and create private right of action against notaries who violate the Notaries Public Act. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry, please state your purpose. [AUDIO ENDS]

This is the same bill we debated yesterday. It has three provisions in it, and we had a good vote on it yesterday and I hope you'll vote for it again. I think Representative Tim Moore has an amendment to this bill. Is that right, Representative Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Daughtry a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll gladly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, thank you, Representative. I wonder, and it may be no problem after Representative Moore's amendment, but I know Representative Jackson has an amendment that's being prepared right now and wondered if we got through Representative Moore's amendment if you'd mind temporarily displacing the bill before a final vote so that Representative Jackson would have an opportunity to prepare that amendment--finish preparing that amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have no objection to that at all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to be recorded as voting no on Senate Bill 151. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting no. Representative Whitmire, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. On Senate Bill 547, I had arrived in the chamber but my station wasn't functioning. I would like to be recorded as voting aye on Senate Bill 547. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye. Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair has been advised that a couple of the bills on the calendar at the beginning of session, some members have been trying to draw up amendments, so there may be a need for us to recess for 15 or so minutes to allow some of the amendments to be prepared. We will go ahead--that includes 321. So we're going to go ahead and move to Senate Bill 626. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 626, a bill to be entitled an act 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. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, we had a good vote on this bill yesterday. Representative Harrison made a very good, positive amendment to the bill. The Commissioner of Agriculture asked us to support this bill. I commend the bill to you and ask for another good vote today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 626 on its third reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 105 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 626 has passed its third reading. The bill be engrossed and returned to the Senate. House Bill 831. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Bill 831, a bill to be entitled an act to provide for the education of children in private psychiatric residential treatment facilities. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may state her inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it appropriate for the bill's sponsor to re-refer a bill to committee? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion would be in order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to have the bill removed from today's calendar and re-referred to rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion, without objection, would be to re-refer House Bill 831 to rules, take it off the calendar and re-refer it to rules. Without objection so ordered. Ladies and gentlemen, we have at least three bills that we will be taking up. The Chair understands that at least three of them do have amendments that are being prepared. The Chair will provide those who intend to put forth amendments 15 minutes to get

…is done, otherwise we will complete the calendar and we will be in recess until 10:55, 10:55. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, Senate Bill 337, “NC Charter School Advisory Board,” without objection would be removed from today’s calendar and re-calendared for Monday, the 22nd. Is there objection? So ordered. Ladies and gentlemen, the members are ready to move forward with Senate Bill 480. The Bill is properly before us. Representative Daughtry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wish to send forth an amendment… [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 one, Line five by rewriting the line to read… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. At the request of the Rules Chairman and after consideration that part of the Bill that you debated yesterday in Senate Bill 321 involving the Register of Deeds is going to be moved to this Bill. It is identical to the exact same thing that you have heard on this floor three times. It’s just being placed on this Bill and I respectfully request that you vote for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Daughtry to the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 480. All in favor vote, “Aye.” All opposed vote, “No.” The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 104 having voted in the affirmative and two in the negative the amendment passes and despite Representative Moore’s best efforts to move this Bill today, the amendment does change the title, so it will be carried over. Ladies and gentleman, Senate Bill 321 is properly before us. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative T. Moore moves to amend the Bill on Page one, Lines seven and eight by rewriting the lines to read… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, if I may be recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members, what this simply does is this removes the provision of Senate Bill 321 that had to do with the Register of Deeds hours. That has been moved to the other bill to put that in conference. We’d ask for the members’ support of the amendment and I’ll be glad to debate the Bill thereafter if there’s any further debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment offered by Representative Moore for the House Committee Substitute Number Three for House Bill Number 321. All in favor vote, “Aye.” All opposed vote, “No.” The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 107 having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative the amendment passes. Representative Moore is on a roll. The amendment changes the title, it will be carried over for a third reading.

Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair understands that there is an amendment pending from Representative Jackson on this bill. We will go ahead and take that up at this time. Representative Jackson is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson moves to amend the bill on page 1 lines 5 through 7 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, this, my amendment would delete Section 4 which is the section that deals with appointment of district court judges by the Governor. I believe Section 4 is a section that is bad for the judiciary. It believe it should’ve gone through the judiciary committee for debate. I wanted to point out just a couple of problems out with this. I was emailing Jarod Cohen last night to make sure I was correct on this, and I want to read you his email. I asked him would that mean if we knew a judge was retiring on December 31st, currently the bar can meet in advanced, can give the names to the Governor in advanced, and the Governor can make that appointment just like many of us do when we came here. We were appointed within days of the vacancy. I asked him would the governor be allowed to do that, and his response was no, that I was correct. Under no circumstances may the vacancy be filled sooner within 30 days after the vacancy occurs. So for those of you who have judicial districts that have only one judge or two judges, you’ll have no judge for a month. So you’ll have no court for the entire month. There’s no way around it. So if you represent a small county with only one judge in it, I want you to think about that. If you represent a county that has two judges, can that one judge that’s left there for a month, can he cover court in two counties, on the same day? I mean this is a rule that we don’t apply to ourselves. We try to have our new members- Welcome by the way- in their seat immediately upon resignation, but the language that is in this bill will require for that seat to remain open for 30 days. That’s the first problem. The second problem I see with the bill with the change of language is currently the Governor, if the judge is elected by partisan election, the Governor must appoint someone from the same party. Now I know that currently district court judges are non-partisan elections, but you've all seen the bills as I have and heard the rumors that might be changing in the next few days. If that was to change, the Governor would not have to appoint someone from the same party. They would be free to select someone from a different party. Is that a rule that we’re going to apply to ourselves? When one of us steps down are we going allow the Governor to pick somebody from either party to replace that person, or are we going to honor the wishes of the electret, the prior election, to pick the Democrat or to pick the Republican for that seat? For those two reasons I think that this is a bad bill. The final reason I think that the Section 4 language is problematic is because there is no automatic provision, and I don’t know how often this is used. But currently if the Governor does not appoint someone within 60 days, the person who got the most votes in the District Bar Election is appointed. Right now, the way this is there’s no, what I call escape hatch and that means a vacant seat could remain open indefinitely until the next election if the Governor didn't want to appoint someone to that seat for whatever reason. I don’t think that’s going to be very helpful to our judiciary as well. I’d ask you to support the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, the language that is in the provision that Representative Jackson is trying to remove is language that actually after we had a discussion that I consulted with Representative Daughtry who chairs the full judiciary committee who have an interest in it, along with Representative Stevens and others. Of course, this was originally from Representative Burr’s bill. This is a modification of the language that Representative Burr had that simply says that the bar shall nominate five names, that the Governor shall give due consideration to those names, and then the Governor has the ultimate ability and right to make an appointment. Now in practical matter what that’s going to mean is that the Governor is going to pick from those five unless the Governor were to find all five of those particular individuals objectionable for some reason, and so what this does it gives our Governor who is elected the right to make that decision. As opposed to tying the hands of the Governor from a recommendation from a bar, which I’m a member of the bar as well as Mr. Jackson and all the other folks who are attorneys in here, we’re members of our local bar, but we’re not elected. We passed the bar exam. We stay in good standing practicing law, and we’re licensed attorneys. And yes, we do have knowledge that we garner from observing folks, their demeanor, or how they practice law, their worth ethics so forth so that we can have some input. And this bill maintains that, but

At the end of the day, those of us are attorneys and members of the local bar should not have the right to tie the hands of the governor, who was elected by the people. I think it's almost elitist to think that we as attorneys should somehow control the courthouse that much. That's just not right. So with that being said, members, I would urge you to vote against the gentleman's amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Turner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To inquire of the amendment's sponsor a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Jackson, you said that if there were no judge appointed thn there would not be a judge available for sessions of court during that time perio. Would they not appoint an emergency judge? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be up to AOC. They could do that, depending on their budget for the year. If it's towards the end of the budget year, and they've used up their emergency judge funds for whatever reason, they wouldn't be able to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, could I be recorded as voting aye on senate bill 480. I was in the chamber, and was unable to get back to my seat. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman records having voted aye. Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Moore would yield for question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Glad to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentlemen yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, I'm concerned about that 30 day loss of a judge. Could you address that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, right now, under the current regimen that could happen presently. The way it is right now, there could be a delay right now, and the way it is right now, the only difference that's happening here representative Speciale is the current law states that if the governor simply failed to act. If the Governor just sat on his hands, which the governor's not going to do. They're going to appoint these judgeships. Otherwise, there's no difference. What this bill does is it calls for five names, instead of three, and it gives the governor the flexibility if he finds those five names, all of those five to be objectionable, to not do it. As far as any delays in time, in all honesty that's not a real concern, and if the governor did sit on his hand and didn't make the appointment for some reason, miss Turner, representative Turner who is a former registered clerk of court, who knows more about the courts than any lawyers. The clerks of court have to run the operation. Pointed out correctly that in that case the AOC would appoint what's called an emergency judge to come in and work and cover those cases. And emergency judges rotate through all the time. And I cannot imagine any scenario where the AOC would allow a judicial district to just go without a district court judge functioning in that instance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And more specifically, to answer the representative Speciale's questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, the lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, debate the amendment. Representative Speciale, we actually had a judge who was killed, drowned over the 4th of July holiday, in neighboring Wilkes county. A judge has not been appointed to fill his position yet. The bar is working on making their recommendations. The judges in our district are consolidating some of their courts, and actually going in serving in that area and filling in his courts. There is a provision that the court does not go unattended or undone, just because there is a death or a lapse in the placement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ??, Play state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The ladies and gentlemen, the rules chair raises I think some valid questions about the current methods with which we replace judges. There's a lot of room out there for an open and honest and an extensive discussion on changes that might be made there. But regardless of where you stand in that debate, what I think we should all agree on is that there needs to be some system of checks and balances, some check from somebody outside the executive branch on the unfettered power of a governor from either party to appoint judges. That's how it's done elsewhere, that's how it's done at the federal level. So if you want to get rid of the current system, that's great. I'll probably be with you on some changes. But let's don't do it until we find a better way to provide those checks and balances. So I urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to get two representatives Speciale's question, because with due respect to my colleagues, it's not been answered correctly on the floor. First, the part that has been answered correctly, and representative Turner pointed this out, is that a

of candied session when a person seen some as high as the #aces for some of his duties of the purpose of the situation outsider in times of a city where his of which was one person Jackson Reyes was his 38. And the affidavit is the same amount in the middle of the line that he is the aisle here's the problem is a lousy, Severson has identified one of the section of the limelight for assessing any agency time of a disease of the listener that for the day's events in her ??part Wilson’s that the daughter of a white eight of a person to drive a stake in the 85 and one other since the recommendations of all either the city's recommendations of the 60 time as the here's what happens if the agency is nominated, which has risen just one that happens all of that one is known as the justices refine the all-race are the heads of some of this timers and he said those names up before the java fires and all of that within a day or two others are more of a fire and 81 of his will offer the house that ??and that the only head the CIA and separating doesn't he called it says the seven any disease of the bill Nelson and 30 days after they can see in mandates a maritime rented out happens now he sits in the current all souls of all personal ones are even some ideas that time really is a volunteer-war hero was for Haiti are affected the audience to one represent district of age of 27 days and nothing can be done at the same time his body needs of the role of the corrected the person, a center was enacted me who is written as a navy, and times when answers this of these are things that service-hunting and this time of the senses of this year to Sara his positions us, and that's it, and the event is a canvas-of-a-10, and drive to resign as an entire sentences and light on this position, and reading and if not-for the houses the passage of the men and some form of a syntax and the house may substitute of race and all 341 alderman the whole President Clinton ??who was important time for anonymity and 6900 of the innocents Auerbach until personalization purpose cents and one of the author of the tile the southern state of the preeminent rate all places and India of this bill has been very dry all of the Sherrard and see the unanimous is building was time on assignment for several forays into a later point in a 38 and one is the tile house baseman ???? has done and the house all three cases adopted under the direction the chairman and that the house building and Cindy reed founder to a one time the 47 action somewhere householder, that of foresters and was PlayStation purpose a statement made because resume the administrator 1927 thousand times a session on Wednesday the nation is of fire was like to live as they live in his mind whether ????????........

To let you know about the conversations that I’ve had over the past, I don’t know, twelve, twelve or so hours. Some of my colleagues have expressed concern and I respect it but this is somehow or this is an unfunded mandate on the counties and that’s the reason they voted no yesterday. I will submit to you respectfully that this is a situation where the counties and the DNV agreed to something back in 2005. I actually have the Memorandum of Understanding somewhere on my desk here and we can, we can discuss that. So since two thousand, 2005, we have waited and it just so happens there's ’ date on it, we have waited until June eighteenth two thousand and thirteen to tell these private small businesses what they were going to do and how they were going to do it and more importantly, what they were going to be paid. So I will submit to you that it is perhaps an underfunded mandate on small business. Again, the tag ‘agents’ back in 05 opposed this Bill. They didn’t want the responsibility of collecting this tax. They were given the responsibility anyway. They were required to do it by law, by statute ??. They’re saying they need the level of fee that’s in this Bill in order to be able to carry out a profitable transaction. In the Memorandum that I mentioned earlier which was signed, pardon me ??, in the fourteenth page Memorandum of Understand, Understanding it’s very interesting. If you look at page two, it shows the parties to the agreement. Let me tell you who they were, the folks who sat down in the room. It was the North Carolina department of Revenue, the North Carolina department of Transportation, North Carolina Association of County Commissioners and the North Carolina League of Municipalities. Nowhere in this list or nowhere on the signature page or these licensed tax agencies. They’ve not been at the table throughout this. We are requiring them to collect the tax. I shared with you numbers yesterday that nobody disputes that more tax will be collected and remitted to the counties. I also disclosed and it was not refuted, in fact I think it was supported. There is, there is an increased cost to the counties if this Bill goes through but it’s more than offset by the additional revenue that comes in. I believe that passing this Bill is important. There’s going to be some talk today about studying the issue. Let me be clear. I think that’s a logical approach that should’ve begun in 2005. It’s very unfortunate to say, we’re going to manually start doing this mail. We’re going to pay you less than you say you’ve got to have to do this and we’re also going to study it to decide how much you should be paid. Please note on page thirteen and I didn’t spend the money to have this produced, on page thirteen of this agreement or this Memorandum of Understanding, it calls for the department to do a study of what the actual cost are and to report back to us so that we can set the fee based on the actual cost. So everyone’s aware that we really don’t know what we were doing. So what I would ask you respectfully is to air on the side of a small business horizon that’s being compelled by law.

...to do something that they didn't ask for. Please vote green for this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Submit amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale moves to amend the bill on page 2, line 5, through page 3, line 24, by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, this is an amendment to study the fees. I tried to find out yesterday where these numbers came from. Obviously, they're based on Representative Lewis' comments. It's coming from the contractor, who doesn't want to do this in the first place. Well, the normal procedure would be to go out for bids and find somebody who does want to do this and who will give us an accurate fee rate after we've studied and made sure that we know what it should cost. The North Carolina Association of County Commissioners is against this. The tax collectors across the State are against this. There's opposition everywhere on this bill, or on this particular section here. And again, these are random numbers. It looks to me, this is my opinion and I don't discount anything that Representative Lewis has done or whoever has worked on this bill. I'm sure they did everything the best that they could. But it concerns me that the contractor is getting his rates based on legislative action and that's not the way we normally would do this. If the contractor doesn't want to do the job in the first place, then let it go out for bids and find somebody who does want to do it and we'll get the best rate. This is a lot of money coming out of the county coffers. So I hope you'll consider this and you'll support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Brunswick, Representative Iler rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if Representative Lewis will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Brunswick? He does? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, during the recent comments we just heard, someone kept saying, the representative kept saying contractor. Isn't this dozens of little contractors that we're dealing with here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. Mr. Speaker, may I be recognized? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To respond to the question and make further comments as necessary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually this was an inquiry to the Chair or perhaps the Clerk and I apologize. I try to stay up on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can't pull up the Speciale amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will be at ease just a moment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My seatmate is smarter than me, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman have the amendment before him now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to respond to the question and to take time as he needs reading the, reading the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you all for your patience. I don't know what I'm doing wrong here, but. The thing that I have, the concern that I have with the amendment set forth by the gentleman from Craven, if you'll look at it, what it does is calls for revenue laws to study this. I don't in theory have any objection to that. The problem is we're going to require that these small businesses, a lot of these things, literally one and two person offices start to collect these taxes on behalf of the counties at a rate they say they can't afford to do. We're going to require them to go ahead and do that at the lower rate while we look into it. What the bill does is say we're going to let them, we would like for them to have a rate that is higher than the 48 cents that's being proposed in the memorandum of understanding, and we're going to study the issue to see what the rate should be set at. So my objection to the amendment, as I read it, is not the study. Now, I've really messed up your computer, Linda. Is not the objection of the study of this issue, it's the concern that we're going to...

...by force of law, go ahead and mandate that these folks start doing a business practice that they've told us they cannot afford to do and then we’re going to review it and then set the fee at a later date. Unless the amendment can be somehow be perfected to the pointed that it just required the additional legislative study, I will have to respectfully ask you to vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion on the amendment. There are several lights on. For what purpose the gentleman from Onslow Representative Cleveland rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentlemen from Harnett, Representative Lewis, does the gentleman yield to a question from Onslow? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For clarification, Representative Lewis, if I understood you correctly in your last statements, you said that in the bill we are actually providing more funding to the contractor than was in the original memorandum of understanding? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. That’s correct. It’s just very, very important to note, Representative, that the parties to the memorandum of understanding did not include any of the tag agents that actually had to do the work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman wishes to prepare an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Department of Transportation was involved in that memorandum of understanding, were they not? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And one follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a final question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the present bill, we’re paying more than the original memorandum of understanding. And we’re also requiring a study to be conducted so we can establish what the individual contractors actually need to perform this duty. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that, Representative. Just to be clear, in the original bill that was filed in 2005 said that the contractors who collect this, which, I know you’re probably more familiar with this than many of us in the chamber, there are some tag agencies that the state itself operates, but most of them are through private contract with small businesses. In the 2005 bill, as it was filed, the language says that the contractors, the small businesses the tax and tag agencies, would be paid a fee to cover their cost of doing this. When it came time to decide, again, this is 2005, by the time this memorandum came out, it was January of 2013. Not only was it January of 2013, but the people that we’re requiring to do something weren’t at the table and weren’t a part of the conversation to decide what the fee should be. The only last point I’d like to make, and I don’t mean to belabor this answer, but I would encourage members when they have time, to take a look at the report done by the program evaluation last year where they looked at how much more efficient the local tag agency offices are than the state run ones. They were amazed at how much it actually cost us to run the state one. I would submit to you that while, yes, the Department of Transportation through the DMV was in fact a party to this MOU, I’m not sure they know exactly what the cost of doing a transaction is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Clearly, we’re going to be giving more money to the license plate agencies than they normally get. That’s what this bill does. The amendment he sent forth says let’s study it, let’s see what they’re supposed to get. I would call your attention to the memorandum of understanding that Representative Lewis was going, and what it says on page 9, sub-paragraph D: All operational costs incurred by DOT...

Department of Revenue, State Treasurer, and calls paid to 3rd party vendors for processing electronic payments and merchant cards will be deducted from the monthly distributions on a pro-rata basis. So they're all getting their money out of the tax money before it goes back to the county. Costs paid to each 3rd party vendor will be based upon the average cost per transaction for all transactions processed by the vendor adjusted for costs not related to vehicle property tax payments. Such adjustments will be based upon the percentage of non-vehicle tax amounts portion of the payment transaction retained by the DOT to the total amount. Once they have this memorandum of the understanding of how they were going to compute the payment, they have attached the operation costs. It's currently costing $0.48 as the average cost for every transaction that the tag agency does. Now they're asking you to double or triple it without truly knowing what the costs are. So at this point, we have set forth the average transaction cost. I'll be happy to share this with anyone who wants to see. And by the way, there's been talk of the counties need to be able to, an willing to bear this expense because they're going to do a such greater job of collection. They're going to do a greater job of collection if they don't have to pay this extra fee. They've already got a fee built in here for the license plate agency, what they're asking you to do in this bill is increase that by double or triple. So again, I ask you to support the amendment, so we can study it, and review and figure out whether this system, which again I don't like the whole system, but this is certainly making it a lot worse on the counties. It is an unfunded mandate. For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill rise? To ask the bill's sponsor a question. Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Randolph? Yes, Mr. Speaker. He yields. Representative Lewis, during this whole process over the last 8 years when there was discussion, I think originally about this original fee, I would think was the $0.48, is that correct? Representative McNeill, I think that's the fee that's contemplated in the memorandum of understanding, I don't know. Representative Stevens may be more equipped to answer that than I am. When the original bill was proposed in '05, it said that it would cover the costs, and as far as I know the January 2013 memorandum is the first time that attempt was made. And again, it was made without the involvement of those that actually do the work. The gentlemen will suspend just a moment, Representatives Howard, Lewis, and Stezer are recognized to send forth a committee report, the clerk will read. Representatives Howard, Lewis, and Stezer for the finance committee, in Bill 420, UI clarify required contributions, favorable to House Committee substitute on favorable is to the Senate Committee substitute. Senate Committee substitute based on the unfavorable calendar, the House Committee substitute's calendar, and without objection will be calendared for today. Is there any objection? Hearing none, it will be so calendared. The gentleman from Randolph continues to have the floor to ask an additional question to the gentleman from Harnett, he yields. The gentleman may state his question. In the original negotiations, are you whether this issue on some of these T stickers was part of the original memorandum of agreement? Thank you for that inquiry. Sir, I'm not aware if it was a part of the original discussion or not, I know that the automobile vehicular's expressed some concern, and that's where the provision came from. Follow up. Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? He yields. Would you not think it fair then, Representative Lewis, that if something was added to these tag agencies, a new thing that they had to do, added to them from the original, that the price should be higher? I would certainly agree with that, yes. Thank you. For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens, rise? To see if I can ask Representative McNeill a question. Does the gentleman from Randolph yield to the lady from Surry? Reluctantly, but yes. He yields. The lady may state her inquiry. Thank you. Representative McNeill, did you know that is $0.48 is a fee simply for collecting that property tax, and not for anything else, the new fee. Yes I do, and may I elaborate. The gentleman does have the floor to respond to the question as he sees fit.

as I understand it, and that's why I'm up asking these questions, I was told when I went to the tag agency with one of my commissioners last Friday, that this addition of this T-sticker was something that was added on and was not part of the original agreement. When everybody was talking about 48 cents, and it's an addition that they're being asked to do for free if the price does not increase, but that's my understanding. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Does the gentleman yield to a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yes. He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. And isn’t the T-sticker just the verification that the taxes have in fact been paid? So, in essence, that's what it was, it's something to show the receipt that the taxes have been paid. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. It's, as I understand it, it's part of the process, but it's a new part of the process that was added, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan, Representative Ford, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. This is a new fee. It's a new tax. It's an additional fee, it's going to cost our counties money. It's an additional layer of government, which I'm against. I don't want to add any more layers of government. Sure the LPA's need more money. Why? Because we've added on something and because they're losing business. Walk-ins, more people are getting their tags now by way of mail and online. I'd rather do that than go stand in line at the tag office. And we're taking money out of our county pockets. So these fees do need to be studied. Right now the county is doing this whole process for less than a dollar. If this goes through, it's going to cost the county, my county, between five and six dollars per transaction. Right now the consumer is paying the credit card part of the transaction. If this goes through, the county will be paying this part of the transaction, adding additional fees to the county. I'm talking to my tax administrators, costing us a quarter million dollars minimum if this goes through, probably much more. We do need to study the fees. It's yet another tax and another layer of government. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To speak in favor of the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. In speaking to the sponsor of the amendment, he raised enough doubt in my mind to understand it from more of a business, I guess, perspective and that is, often time it's no great secret that if you're in a business to do X and someone approaches you and wants X, but a little more that may be out of your expertise, or what you currently do. And you really don't want to do that work, and you'd prefer not to do that work, but you're there to actually help the guy. You may end up charging just a little bit more. Because it's just beyond your expertise. You may need a special tool, you may need a special device. You just may need something other than what you normally throughput your facility. So I've heard different colleagues of mine, the business sector call it a nuisance charge, or an up cost or whatever. Especially if it's outside of what you currently do. That being said, the folks were contracted to do a specific. They were priced for that specific. It's obvious we're changing that, so it's obvious there should be a cost adjustment. But the way I understand it, the way we do cost adjustments in this state, typically, is to look at it, figure out mutually how much it's going to be, and make an adjustment. I think that's what we're trying to do, but it concerns me that a good analysis of the up charge or the additional fee that we may be trying to impose, at this point in time, at least in my mind, hasn’t been adequately defined. So what I'd hope we'd do is during that study period, as brief as it can possibly be, it can be determined that we work on a methodology to alter the current contract, or perhaps resubmit bids out for contracts, and do it the way that we would normally conduct business. And thank you for your time, and I support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Moore, Representative Boles, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To debate the amendment and ask the bill sponsor friendly questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Does the gentleman wish to ask the question first? Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Moore? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I do, Mr... [SPEAKER CHANGES]. He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Just for clarification, we're talking about private, licensed contractors, correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. OK. And I've talked with my local contractor, and the last fee change that they had was in 2000. If you can confirm, or if you have knowledge of that?

Representative Boles, I know that it's been some years, but I wouldn't want to state on the floor something that I'm not certain of. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then there was another question that... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to ask an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker. Can I ask another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Also, she stated that the fee structures were, they have to come through the General Assembly for approval. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. Right. And I'd like to debate the bill. I meant amendment, I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from ?? has the floor to debate the amendment. Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. Thank you. I would hope that we would defeat this amendment. It's been stated, it's been studied. It's a program that's been trying to be implemented since 2005. I can assure you that private sector does a much better job when it comes to processing. I would hope that with these independent license plate agencies that we have is that they've been in limbo since 2005 about what's going to happen. The county commissioners and everybody else has been working on this program. It's in place. It's ready to go. And I hope that we would defend this, defeat this amendment and that we can help the agencies that are doing a good job. I talked to my county manager. He had a concern that he thought that they may lose money, but on the flip side he said he really couldn't confirm that because they're not going to have to go out and collect. He said we're not going to have to send second, third, fourth, fifth notices. The mail should drop, mail costs. And the expense of tracking down property owners. So with this, I ask that you defend this amendment and that we vote for the bill and as stated before, there's been no change to the license agencies since 2000. Vote no on the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wilkes, Representative Elmore rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have an additional amendment to offer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. We'll come back to you on that. For what purpose does the lady from Yancey, Representative Presnell rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill's sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the lady from Yancey? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you know how many counties currently run their own tag agencies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, I do not. That is, in fact, in that program evaluation report. As I said, I just wouldn't want to state something that I'm not certain of. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just wondering. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Brawley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] First, to ask a question of the Representative Lewis and then to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Harnett yield to the gentleman from Mecklenburg? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, thank you for taking my question. As I understand, the fee will go for three months to $1.06 and then drop to, is it 71 cents, or...let's say slightly less than 80. More than 70, less than 80. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And this fee's being imposed without negotiation on a function that's also being imposed on a private individual? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Mecklenburg has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I would oppose the amendment and part of the reasons why, you know I ran a bill on collection costs for 911 fees on prepaid cell cards. And during that discovered that people that sell lottery tickets receive a 7% commission. We're imposing this duty, we're not asking them to accept it and they say yeah, I'll do it for 48 cents. We're saying you will do it and this is what we'll pay you. I guarantee you if we offered them a 7% commission on taxes collected, we would have no trouble getting them to sign up. But that would mean for every $100 of property tax on a car, they would receive a $7 fee. If we're talking 71 cents on a $100 collection, that's 7/10ths of 1%. If your car tax is $200, that's 3/10ths of 1%. That's not an outrageous commission. We're talking, we've got dollars chasing pennies here. And it would seem for us to impose a duty and offer a fee of less than 80 cents per transaction, we're not making people rich. If anything, we're probably being a little overbearing. If anybody should be given the option to opt out it ought to be the tag dealers. They should be able to say look, this is not worth the trouble, I don't want to do it for 80 cents. You all just go ahead and collect it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what...

What purpose does the lady from Randolph , Representative Hurley, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the amendment sponsor please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentlemen from Craven yield to the lady from Randolph? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Speciale, I just wondered if you knew that this all went online on January, on July the 1st. If this program is already in process on July 1st. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And follow up please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentlemen yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Andin this bill that we have here and it and it goes to the amendment, it does appoint an advisory committee that will review the process, so they already have something in place that will probably know what will happen with the funding, whether it’s too much or not enough or whatever. But they are, in this amendment to study when were you expecting the study to be done? Was it to stop the program or is it to be done while its ongoing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s to be done while it’s ongoing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nothing. Follow up please. So when are they to report back? If the study is done? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to, when it’s appropriate I’d like to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen, wish to yield or not to the follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to make a motion so that we can look at this closer [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to make a motion to recalendar this for next week for Monday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The matter before us right now is the amendment. So the first thing we would do is to make a motion to withdraw the amendment and then the gentlemen could make a motion to re-calendar without objection. We could re-calendar, does the gentlemen wish to withdraw the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not without a guarantee to re-calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Special, we’re only one light away, or two lights away from being able to take a vote on the amendment, the Chair would encourage because the chair will announce later that next week is very very very highly likely our last week, everything that we can dispose of while we’re in session, the Chair would encourage members to make use of the time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Special you have the floor will you yield to Representative Lewis? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, based on the conversation, the very quick conversation we had, I believe I understand what the intent that you have as far as changing the language on this If it is such that with the Speakers understanding that your intent is to withdraw this and to resubmit it, if the vote’s held today would that solve this and let us move along? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It would. If I could withdraw this amendment and resubmit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment is withdrawn we will re-calendar. We will move forward with the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a couple minutes to resubmit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then we will, if the House ?? Representative Lewis, this is on third reading. So if we take a vote on the bill today. Then we’ve disposed of the bill it would not be possible for Representative Special to resubmit this amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquire to the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please, please help me know how to say to you that I believe that there are other amendment that are in the queue and that I think the gentlemen from Craven can perfect this and resubmit it before we vote on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, that is one of the kindest ways someone has said pay attention, Speaker, in my three years as being Speaker and the Chair appreciates it. So that amendment will be properly withdrawn, we will take up other amendments, we will provide Representative Speciale with adequate time to prepare an additional amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Representatives Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the Speciale amendment or one similar to that is adopted, would that not in fact change the title that caused the third reading to be put off to Monday anyway? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Depends on the content of the revised amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But a Speciale-like amendment

I believe it would be substantial enough to change the title [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair would defer to the clerk whether or not we have adequate information or if we would have to make that ruling at the time the Amendment is sent for. The current Amendment does not have that effect Representative Starnes and the opinion of the clerk and there fore we would have to wait and see what the content what the next Amendment may be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] inquiry [SPEAKER CHANGES] the Gentlemen may state his inquiry [SPEAKER CHANGES] would it not be possible just to carry the bill over until Monday night so these [SPEAKER CHANGES] there are other Amendments again the Chair being sensitive to the use of our limited remaining chamber time that we would like to go ahead and take up and then we may have to make that decision at that time but the chair would prefer to go ahead and dispose of the other Amendments that are in the possession of the clerk. Representative Elmore is recognized to send forth an Amendment the clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Elmore moves into bill on page 2 line 27 by deleting the phrase [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Speaker. As with many public policies that this chamber passes you see its kind of like dropping a pebble into a pool of water, ripples move out and a little ripple out here has affected something and we see this in this argument dealing with this bill. What this Amendment will do is dealing with this fee it is changing it to a two fee structure here for six months trying it at a higher fee then six months trying it at a lower fee to try to pinpoint what the best fee would be to set because it has been admitted that their kind of shooting in the dark on the determination of what this fee should be so I think this Amendment would be a fair way to have a higher mark and then a lower mark to see where eventually it can be met in the middle and I would appreciate your support on the Amendment. Thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] further debate on the Amendment. If not the request before the house is the passage of the Amendment sent forth by Representative Elmore for the Senate Committee substitute Senate Bill 305 all in favor vote Aye all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will ?? the machine record the vote 43 have been voted affirmative and 64 in the negative the Amendment fails. Representative Stevens is recognized sent forth an Amendment the clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens moves to amend the bill on page 3 lines 33 and 34 by re-writing the lines to read [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Ladies recognized to debate the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Speaker this idea came from some other members of the house and I hope they'll stand up and speak with it to. As you can see this is a complicated issue these parties are asking for a raise without going through the normal process none of us has had this in a committee with the opportunity to truly look at it and get all of the considerations their asking for a raise without even saying what the extra work is their having to do. The system is in place they've been collecting their collecting at 48 cents that's what they get. What this bill says is lets put off the implementation of this bill until July of next year and have our revenues committee take a look at it and I would ask for your support [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] to debate the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentleman is recognized to debate the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] there was a bill submitted to transportation to do exactly that to put this off for allowed counties to opt out because this was the end of a several year project that Bill as Representative Stevens correctly stated was not heard. We felt like after spending several years working on this and several million dollars it was time to go forward and I would recommend that we defeat the Amendment and let's get on with the bill and pass it [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] to speak on the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house well Representative Stevens and I co-sponsored that bill together to allow counties to opt out but that didn't happen so we've moved forward. Now I'm gonna have to take the side

...of the tag agency in this situation. The tag agents have been collecting the tax, the county taxes, since July the 1st of this year. For the last two and half weeks, the tag agents have become the tax collectors for the automobile tax. Now the counties are fussing about their going to lose money. But we've taken the responsibility away from them. Any reasonable county manager would be able to look at his county tax office and say you know, now that we don't have this responsibility, maybe we're over staffed and we can reduce our employees. But the tag agents have been given this responsibility that they didn't want and they didn't have any say so over how much they were going to be compensated for this transaction. So the State said we're going to pay you 48 cents. Well, what has happened is in the last two and half weeks the tag agents are saying listen, this is not covering our costs. We need to make an adjustment to these fees. Now these tag agents are good people. They're just small business people and they've never been tax collectors before and when they signed up to run a tag office, they didn't sign up to get cussings from taxpayers who are mad because they can't get their tags because their tax hasn't been paid. They've been put in an awkward situation. Now we've got to collect the property tax on your automobile or we're not going to give you a tag. And so they're getting cussings, they're getting fussed at, they're getting accused of doing things that they've never been accused of, and 48 cents is not covering the transaction costs. I'm going to ask you just to defeat the amendment so we can go on with the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ford, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm for this amendment. There's so much confusion among the counties. I represent two counties. I asked one of my counties, Cabarrus, they said we need to look at this. We didn't even think about it. Don't know what it's going to cost us. I'm waiting to hear back. And Rowan has stepped out over the last couple of months and told me what it's going to cost them. We need to study this. I mean it may have been studied for the last eight years, but it seems to be hitting everybody on the head. Boom. Just like this in the last few weeks. It is going to cost our counties more money. Our sheriff just contacted me today by way of e-mail. He's afraid it's going to lock up the court systems. So there's all kind of questions going on with this fee and I agree with this amendment for putting it off another year. The reason the local tag agencies are making less money is as I stated earlier, it's because more and more people are getting these online and through the mail except for Representative Pittman, he doesn't want to pay for the stamp, but that's another story. So I would suggest that we support this amendment. And the reason they're getting cussed out at the tag office is because now they're collecting taxes. And people that, when they pay taxes, they get a little ill. The county's already used to handling that. The tag offices are not. Support this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. As you all heard earlier before, this is started in 2005. And I guess it's like State government where it's 2013 and we're still going to say we're going to study it again. I hope that we would defeat this amendment and we would move on. The system is already in place and the counties can, they said that the counties are confused. I don't think they're confused. They've had, they've been in the discussions and they know what's been going on with the license plate and I think we need to move on and defeat this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In eight years we ought to have a Ph.D. on this amendment. We studied this enough. I know in my county the person that owns the tag office personally and I've been hearing about this for awhile. And they are losing money. They are being told to collect taxes now and they haven't been tax collectors before. They're in business to sell tags, not collect taxes. Now, they're collecting taxes. So I ask that you defeat this amendment and vote green on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Lewis a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields.

Representative Lewis, this bill went into effect July 1 of 13. For the last 17 days, what is the fee that the tag agents are being paid, today? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, I believe it would be 48 cents. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, if- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields for a follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. Excuse me. Representative Lewis, if the amendment should pass and this study with revenue laws would start in perhaps September and there would be a report that would be sent forward in early April for May session, would there be anything to prohibit, in your opinion, anything that would prohibit a retroactive payment when a fee is determined to be justified, an increase in a fee, would there be anything that prohibit that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that question, Representative. The answer to that is I don’t know that there would be anything necessarily that would prevent a retroactive payment. It’s an issue of can the agencies survive until the report is done, and the General Assembly convenes next May. And then we go back to the counties and tell them, “Hey you got to pay. We’re going to withhold.” Of course, we never ask them to write checks. We just withhold more. It looks like to me that would be a problematic solution to this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One follow-up question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If in fact this bill does not pass in the next week, do you believe that there’s jeopardy that these tag agents will not be able to survive? What will happen to those tag agents? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, it is my sincere and honest opinion, and please notice I used the word opinion, that there are numerous ones of these tag agencies that are already on the edge of financial failure and requiring them to do something that they say costs them more to do that the state and the county are willing to compensate them for does mean that there are at least a certain percentage, I don’t know how many, but there are a certain percentage that are in danger of failure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Lewis. Speak on the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe that any of these tag agents fail that it is the responsibility of the state of North Carolina to look at either replacing those local offices or to further encourage that these transactions be done by mail. As Representative Boles stated a few minutes ago, we have studied the issue of tax and tags, but we’re in the tall weeds now of what the compensation for these agents should be. And that has never been really thoroughly debated by either Chamber or of the General Assembly. It is our responsibility to set those fees and authorize those fees. I’m not asking for more work, but I will tell you this. It’s the right thing to do, to send it to revenue laws, and as the current Chair of the House on revenue laws, we can bring this up in September and do a thorough study. I was here when the bill was passed, the original bill, the Tax and Tags Bill, and there has been a promise that the counties will generate and receive a whole lot more money. The collection rate is going to be a whole lot better. I tend to believe that because you aren't going to get your tag if you don’t pay your tax, and I think the concept that Representative ?? had was a good one, but we have

Prof of that. We have no evidence that this is going to work the way we hope that it’s going to work. I’m going to ask you to support the amendment if it’s in your will. The bill did pass in 205 and yes we’ve messed with it for many many years and it’s in effect. But it is our responsibility to see that fees are fair. Compensation is fair. And I believe the right thing to do is to allow the revenues and that’s what that committee is charged to do. Revenue Laws Study Committee. It’s never been there, it’s never been discussed there, or never been debated there. So this provision is sent to Revenue Laws and you are allowed to have a thorough study using the backup material from the Program Evaluation Division and if in fact, and if I’m wrong I’ll certainly beg for forgiveness. But I believe if the fees are increased as perhaps they should be, I do not believe there’ s anything that would prohibit this general assembly next May to put those fees in after a complete study and know that they’re fair, they’re fair for the tax payer, they’re fair for the county and they’re also fair for these contractors. That we cannot retroactively put those fees in play. Remember who is paying the fees. It’s your counties. So the counties would understand there may be a retroactive provision here that they will have to further compensate the state agencies. But by that time you’ve had almost a year to see if in fact the collection rate is exceeds or even achieves the level of collection that we’ve been promised that we’re going to see. This is the best solution that I can see. We’ve been here almost an hour we’ve had this bill almost an hour in finance. It is a question it’s a big question that we are charged with doing the right thing. I don’t know what’s the right fee. Because nobody’s ever shown it to me on paper But I believe when you get through revenue laws you’ll see it. I would ask that you support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I debate the amendment Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen’s recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And first let me offer my most sincere thanks to the members for their indulgence of this extended conversation. I did want to address a prior member spoke about the danger of the private agencies closing perhaps being replaced with state agencies. I wanted to remind the body that the Program and Evaluation Division after a very thorough study of this issue, that the state agencies simply cost a whole lot more to run than private agencies do. And so it’s not exactly a fair thing to say that if they’re struggling now perhaps they should close because the state government can do it better or the local government can do it better. I’d also like to close my remarks Mr. Speaker, and if I veer slightly off topic I apologize. The concern abut this being studied by revenue laws I believe if members would look at their dashboard, the gentlemen from Craven is going to send forth an amendment that does that that I do not intend to oppose I intend to support. So I think it’s a win win, if we defeat this amendment and pass the bill and continue to study this issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question, I think, after that last statement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentlemen yield? The gentlemen yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, as you know I voted against this yesterday.

[Speaker changes.]...terday and I really have struggled to understand what this is all about. The thing that bothers me now more than anything else is the fact that apparently we had one-sided negotiations to come up with these rates that we're now paying where the government had lots of representatives and the private sector had none. I am concerned about the statement you made a minute ago 'bout possibly some of these people shutting down because of the price we have negotiated for them in effect and I could vote for this amendment, which right now I plan on voting against...if we defaulted to paying them the higher rate and then revenue laws tell what the rate should be since they didn't have a seat at the table to start with and my question...I was just gonna make a comment on this...but my question now is is that basically what the speciality amendment does? Because I would be in favor of supporting this amendment if we used the rates that we know will keep these folks in business until the revenue laws basically negotiates with both sides and tells what it needs to be so...I guess that's my question since you know more about this than I do. [Speaker changes.] Yes, sir. The amendment that Representative Speciale will send forward would allow the fees that the private agencies have said they need to be paid in order to collect this tax to go into effect and then revenue laws would review it and recommend back to the General Assembly how the fees should adjust. [Speaker changes.] More comment then, please? [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker changes.] In that case I think I would vote...ask the body to please defeat this amendment and pass the next one. [Speaker changes.] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To debate the amendment as... [Speaker changes.] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker changes.] I just wanted to make it clear that I do not want to see any of these small tag agencies go under...and, to that point, it is more important than ever that the revenue laws study the issue and decide...or try to determine what is fair, both for the contractors and for the counties and everybody else. Be it the Stevens amendment or the Speciale amendment, it needs to go to revenue laws and have a complete review and I would ask for ya' to support the Stevens amendment. If it's defeated then we'll go to the second amendment and, if that one's defeated, I...hopefully we can move it til Monday night. (Laughter.) [Speaker changes.] Hopefully not. Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] For point of order. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman may say his point. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker, would it be in order at this time to offer a perfecting amendment that would delete Section 4.2 from the current amendment? [Speaker changes.] Perfecting amendments are in order. The question that I have is whether or not we should look for the big reveal that we're hoping from the Speciale amendment before we potentially take up another thirty minutes on a perfecting amendment to this amendment if the gentleman would indulge. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker, I was just trying to get there as quickly as possible. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Representative Jones. As am I. [Speaker changes.] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To speak on the amendment. [Speaker changes.] Lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [Speaker changes.] Basically all I wanna say is that the numbers in essence that are in this bill is what the license plates agencies asked for. There's been no study to show what they need or that they need it, which is exactly why we wanna send it to revenue laws. I understand the desire to help these license plate agencies have more money but this is the amount of money they get paid for an average transaction. Somebody comin' in and payin' their taxes is as average a transaction as somebody comin' in and renewin' their registration, somebody comin' in and submitting their new car tag/license, transferrin' their car titles. All of those are the average transactions that this consideration of the amount of money set forth went into so I would ask you to support the amendment. [Speaker changes.] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Stevens to the Senate Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 305. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. [Speaker changes.] The Clerk will lock machine and record the vote. 36 in the affirmative and 74 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Representative Speciale moves to amend the bill on page three by inserting the following between lines 32 and 33.

The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, because we have passed the 11th hour on this issue, we are at high noon. They’re already doing the job, we’ve got to do something. This amendment will allow them to go ahead and get paid what was agreed upon, but it will require, we’ll put in the bill that a study is required to come back to us in the 2014 General Assembly, with a review of the cost for each transaction, so that that we, at that time, can make a determination. This should have been done, we all know that it should have been done a while back, but it takes it from that memorandum which none of us probably saw, and puts in the bill requiring a study. I ask that you would support this and we can move on and get out of here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I fully support the amendment and ask the members to vote green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Speciale to the Senate committee substitute for Senate Bill 305. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 109 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, the amendment passes. The Chair admires the resolve of Representative Stevens. Representative Dobson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Just to be recorded on Senate Bill 480, the Daughtry amendment as voting aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye on the Daughtry amendment on 480. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Millis please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A very quick question for the bill’s sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, for all the amendments that have gone on and what actually got approved and what actually did not, the way the bill currently stands amended, would this be viewed as an unfunded mandate to counties that currently have high collection rates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, thank you for that question. You and I have had this conversation, I have a great deal of respect for you, and I think that a reasonable person could possibly view it that way as I’ve said before, I would contend that without the bill as amended, it’s an unfunded mandate or a required...it’s requiring private business to do stuff for the government at a loss. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage Senate committee substitute to Senate Bill 305 on its third reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 95 having voted in the affirmative and 15 in the negative, the Senate committee substitute to Senate Bill 305 as amended has passed its third reading. The bill will be returned to the Senate for concurrence in the Speciale amendment by special messenger. Ladies and gentlemen, we have one other the bill to dispose of on the calendar. Representative Jones, please state your purpose. . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I wish to be recorded as voting no on amendment ASV-52 to Senate Bill 305. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted no. Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ask to be recorded as voting no on the Jackson amendment on House Bill 321. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded voting no on the Jackson amendment on 321. Senate Bill 420. The clerk will read. This is the last bill we’ll take up for the calendar, ladies and gentlemen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for Senate Bill 420. The bill has been entitled an act to make technical administrative and clarifying changes to the unemployment insurance laws. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Ladies and gentlemen of the chamber...

This is the final UI technical correction field. I know you have heard me say that once before that I will remind you that all through the year that we were working on the bill that we had direct communication with U.S department of Labor and we sent our complete draft before to the department of Labor in the first week of November. And we received a compliance letter note back from them last week. It was very kind and gentle. We are in compliance basically 99.9%. But the suggestion that the department has made we had incorporated in the senate bill with the support of the Senate sponsor. And I will try to explain the bill to you. The section 1 of the bill especially limits of the funds the employment insurance fund the payment of employment benefit that would always be in [??] .we just made it clear. Section2 is the Senator Ben Clark’s provision that initially came from the senate and it clarifies the description of the formula to calculate the tax rates. It makes no actual change in the tax rate. But it’s in a clarifying language. Section 3 especially states that government’s non-profits in [??] would be treated as the same as other employers also especially states that each clients stand alone allowing each employee to file a valid claim even if the past claims had been denied. Also in Section 3 the third part, the technical change to add the educational service agency as required by the Federal law. Section 4 in the bill especially excludes social security benefits, that’s way it’ been always in the past that was certainly the intent of HB4 that we are writing it in there so that the Federal Government can see it in written words. Section 5 especially the waive work for search requirement for all training approved by the division. You can’t just go in to a work program or to a training program that is not approved by the division unless they would be allowed. Section 4 is just leaving some obsolete phrases section, I am sorry that was section 6. Section 7 especially states that employers charge the clients by seasonal workers will be treated the same as other employers. Section 8 is technical change language just referring making reference to the labor and economic analysis division. Section 8 is the effective date is the same as the original [??] and I would ask for your support. [Speaker Changes] Representative Luebke, Please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] speak on the bill [Speaker Changes] Gentlemen right now is to debate on the bill [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the house. As Rep Howard said this bill does respond to the concerns or most of the concerns raised by the department of labor letter those that are technically required. The letter from the department of labor also points that 70,000 persons unemployed who are on emergency federal benefits [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, Point of order [Speaker Changes] Rep Stevens Please state your purpose [Speaker Changes] point of order [Speaker Changes] [??] for raising your point [Speaker Changes] Far beyond technical corrections [Speaker Changes] Yeah. The gentlemen is again reminded to stay on the content and matter before us. The gentlemen may proceed [Speaker Changes] And what I wanted to do in recognition of the many people who are losing the unemployment benefits or the federal benefits is to take note of what the letter says on page 11.

and offer an amendment to give us one more chance, following the letter on page 11, giving us one more chance to provide those benefits to the 70,000 people. When I drew that amendment, up, it was reviewed by staff [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will yield, Rep. Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order, I believe he's still far from the amendment. ?? before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'm referring to the letter from the Dept. of Labor as is the intent of Chair Howard's bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may proceed, the gentleman will be mindful of the content of his comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. So in trying to help those that would receive the Federal unemployment benefits, I sought to run an amendment that would in fact suspend our bill today, as of July 18th, and would therefore allow adjusted benefits. Staff pointed out to me that once we had made as a body, made the decision to have the bill begin on July 1 rather than Jan. 1, 2014, which would have allowed the benefits to go to the 70,000, it was not possible to offer an amendment. That is to say, this body and the Senate and the Governor having decided to implement the bill on July 1, the federal unemployment benefits cannot be offered even as adjusted to July 18th. I regret that very much, and threfore cannot support the bill. I hope others with my concerns would do so. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Wilkins please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to offer a point of information Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I'd just like to point out that for this bill, there are no supplemental documents available on the dashboard. This to me is a unique situation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will be at ease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Wilkins, is there a specific document or information the gentleman wishes to review? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may Mr. Speaker, I would just anticipate that we would have a bill summary. I'm prepared to move forward without it, but I thought that it should be pointed out to the chamber. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's point is taken. The question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate bill 420 on its second reading. All in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote "no", the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 72 having voted in the affirmative, 36 in the negative, the House committee substitute to Senate bill 420 has passed its second reading, and without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to Senate bill 420 on its third reading. All in favor say "aye"? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, "no"? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The "aye"s appear to have it. The "aye"s do have it. The House committee substitute to Senate bill 420 has passed its third reading. The bill will be returned to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, before we go to notices and announcements, to give you an idea of where we are, the chair is optimistic that we will reach agreement on the budget. Most likely some time tomorrow. Therefore, when we adjourn we will be announcing a skeleton session on Sunday, for the purpose of reading in the conference report to conform to the rules about the report being available for public inspection 2 days before we take the vote on it. So the chair would anticipate the first vote on the budget to be on Tuesday. We will also be, we will have a session on Monday. It may be slightly earlier than normal, we're trying to work out the time and we will try for your planning purposes to let you know. It would be obviously announced on Sunday, but to try and give you a little bit more warning than that. But the chair would anticipate no earlier than about 4:00, but perhaps 4:00 on Monday. Again, what we're trying to do is have as much time as we can to dispose of other bills because the chair anticipates, barring a surprise, an unlikely surprise

...that we will be adjourning either Wednesday or Thursday of next week for the year. The Chair does not anticipate any plans for any session between now and next May, and that the adjournment date would be for the appropriate date in May of next year. The Chair would also tell you if you're a stickler for tradition as the Chair is, if you happen to have a purple tie, or a purple pocket scarf, or a purple dress or suit, that in honor of our good friend Representative Womble, you may want to bring it with you next week so that when we have the final day we can show him our friendship and respect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion pertaining to the calender. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker, I would move that the bills that would normally be carried over to the next session, which would be Sunday, be in fact carried over to Monday's since Sunday is going to be a skeleton session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection... so ordered. Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry for the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Speaker I notice that you are an honorable man, and you've mentioned Wednesday – Tuesday or Wednesday – and that for us to in some kind of way find something purple, and you gave two days, so should we bring three, or just two? [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, we will let you know, you only need to bring one, and we will let you know in advance, the day before you need to wear it. As was the tradition with Representative Womble so he could put on that remarkable purple suit of his. Notices and announcements. Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Many of you have noticed that my seat-mate has not been here today. I'm sorry to announce that his sister passed away this morning, and right after her came in today, he left. Please keep in your prayers him and his family. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For those who can attend there will be a caucus this afternoon at 2 o'clock, in the Finance room. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. Members, you all indulged me yesterday when I told you some stories about my trip to the UK with our wounded warriors to look at recovery through motor sports. I didn't tell you the full story, and someone I wanted to thank for that, because that person wasn't in the room at the time. But this effort got started at the end of last year, when I went in and pitched Speaker Tillis on some form of program like what was going on in the UK, in North Carolina. He picked it up and ran with it – well, he delegated it to his very capable staff, and immediately set up a meeting of folks from around the state and our universities, community colleges, commerce and throughout state government, and was really one of the driving forces behind that. So Mr Speaker, I wanted to publicly thank you for all your help. We've passed the first step in what I think is going to be a continuing success. Thank you, sir. [applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of Personal Privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to invite the members and their families to western North Carolina beginning this weekend and going into next weekend, it'd be a good way to celebrate the end of the session for them to come to Folkmoot USA, North Carolina's official international festival. This Friday at 1 o'clock any of you are welcome to join us, we have a parade of nations that march down. We have eight or nine international folk dance teams that dance down the main street of Waynesville to kick off the festival. This Saturday there is an international festival day in downtown Waynesville. The nine teams will dance all over western North Carolina, some 30 venues in the next two weeks, but you are certainly welcome to come, and if I can help you make arrangements or put you up at my house you're welcome to come to western North Carolina for Folkmoot, this weekend and next. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, does that extend into Sunday? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It does, it is. It goes through this weekend and all the way into Sunday. They have a candlelight closing on Sunday at Lake Junaluska's Stuart Auditorium Sunday evening, weekend [RECORDING ENDS]

Unknown clip from previous section: - last week is a wonderful occasion to be at. So, we’d sure love to have you join us. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker: Presenter Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moore: For an announcement, the gentleman is recognized for an announcement. Ladies and gentlemen, if you can’t make it to Representative Queen’s event, the North Carolina Transportation Museum, this Saturday, will have a special exhibit opening. Its Blackbeard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge exhibit from 1718, now has actual treasures from the shipwreck of Blackbeard the Pirate that are traveling the state, and they’ll host this event for six week. Blackbeard's Queen Anne’s Revenge 1718 features real items from the real shipwreck of Blackbeard the Pirate, such things as: weaponry, nautical tools, personal items. So, if you get a chance to get down there Saturday, let Dr. Cherry know you’re there. He’ll announce your presence and introduce you. And, you can join Secretary Kluttz there. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker: Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moore: Mr. Speaker, maybe that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on Sunday, July 21, 2013, subject to your ratification of bills, receded messages from the Senate, receded committee reports, receded conference reports, referral bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, and modifications to the calendar to reconvene at that time. At 2 o’clock P.M., for Sunday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker: Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Stevens. And, subject to the ratification of bills and resolutions, messages from the Senate, receded committee reports, receded conference reports, referral bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, and modifications to the calendar to reconvene on Sunday, July 21, at 2 P.M. Ladies and gentlemen, again, it’ll most likely be 4 P.M. on Monday. But, the motion before, all in favor, say aye. All opposed, say no. You guys have it, the House stands adjourned.