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.

Senate | July 19, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

Senate will come to order. The Sergeant at Arms will close the doors. Members will go to their seats. Members and guests of the gallery will please silence all electronic devices. Leading the Senate in prayer is the Reverend Peter Milner, Senate Chaplain. All members and guests in the gallery will please stand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let us pray together. Heavenly Father thank you again for gathering us here in Your name. Thank you for the opportunity that we have to work together towards unity. The conversations that we have here are so delightful to you, Heavenly Father, because they remind us that we were made for relationships. May we complete a good work week with the confidence that you are moving these relationships. You are moving these conversations and You are the bedrock of them. May our disagreements remind us that not just our frustrations are the center but our humanity and our being fashioned in our humanity is what draws us to You who made us in Your image. For Christ’s sake we pray. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Pate is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. The Journal for Thursday, July 18th, 2013 has been examined and found to be correct. I move that the Senate dispense with the reading of the Journal and that it stand approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, the Journal for July 18th stands approved as written. Members, leaves of absences are granted for Senators Brunstetter, Clodfelter, Cook, Curtis, Goolsby, Graham, Hartsell, Jenkins, Nesbitt, Robinson, Soucek, Stein, Walters and Woodard. Any other volunteers? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With that list, Mr. President, I think we can get some real business done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members we’re ready to go into the calendar. Unless there’s something further that…OK, local bills, second reading, House Bill 726, Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 726, “Wake County Commissioners Responsible for School Construction.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. House Bill 726 gives Wake County the responsibility for school construction. Under this bill the Wake County School Board would be required to consult with the County Commissioners regarding their school real estate needs and then the school board would still retain management responsibility for the school buildings. This idea came from the changes we discussed in this chamber before. It came from the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. I’ve been encouraged to move forward with this bill by the Wake County Board of Commissioners. The intent, of course, is to allow the school board members to have more time to focus on education needs and the Wake County Commissioners, the more business-oriented folks to be able to focus on the real estate, construction and the site acquisition needs for the county. Another benefit of this legislation is to eliminate duplicate construction offices. The Wake County School Board has a construction office and the Wake County Commission has a construction office. This legislation would require only one construction office. This is really just common-sense legislation, I think, to save the taxpayers money. All of this is about saving taxpayer money. I think the Wake County Commission has been motivated to move forward on this due to some unfortunate business decisions made by the Wake County School Board. It was a non-partisan issue and it was voted on unanimously by the Wake County Boards and Commissions, Republicans and Democrats all voted to assume responsibility of school construction and real estate site acquisition. I’ve had numerous counties come forward to ask to be included in this bill but Senator Tillman told me a long time ago I should have done this just as a single-county bill, a local bill and I don’t know why he wasn’t more forceful, but Senator Tillman, you did a good job, I should have done it. But we’ve had lots of counties try to get on this. I said, “You all just run your own school board bill.”

...and that’s what we’re doing here today. I appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the jury...Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. It’s Friday, Mr. President. Normal work day for me. My fellow Senators, Senator Hunt has set forth what he thinks, or at least what he indicates are good reasons for your doing this. If it’s a good reason to do it in Wake county then it’s a compelling a reason to do it statewide. School boards have a unique place in our organization in this state. I daresay that the overwhelming majority of you recognize the importance of the independence of school boards and most senses, the non-partisan nature of school boards. Where we've had problems with school boards it’s where they've taken on partisan attributes. Of all the things in our society, those between 5 and 18 are those that we owe the highest obligation to and we ought to certainly remove politics from it. But if we’re going to give school boards the ability to make a difference, you've got to give them some power to go along with that ability. Some of you have had experience in mergers and acquisitions and other business transactions. Senator Hunt says that one of the things this bill will do is eliminate duplicative construction offices. The Wake County School Board controls and manages multiple times the amount of property that the county commissioners manage and bill. Right now, Wake County is considering an $800 million plus bond issue. Four years ago we passed almost a billion dollar bond issue. The county’s construction activities don’t come anywhere close to that. The school board’s construction office is much bigger than the country construction office, has much greater expertise in it. In a normal situation, a mammoth office like the Wake County school board construction office would be the one taking over construction. But in Senator Hunt’s proposal, he’s having the county commissioners construction office, which is a dwarf compared to the school board’s construction office, swallow this will. Doesn't make sense from a business standpoint and an experience standpoint. He says it’ll allow the county commissioners to save money, because of unfortunate business decisions. He gives you the one or two, maybe not wisest decisions the school board has made, but he doesn't give you the unwise decisions that the county commissioners have made. I’ll give you an example that makes the point. Earlier this year, the Wake County Board of Commissioners received a proposal from the school board to buy an old YMCA site within the city big enough to do a school. The kind of site that we need for the Wake County School Board. The school board offered $825,000 for the site, the county commissioners in their great wisdom, decided no, that was too much to pay for the site. A site that was very much needed in the programming for Wake County public schools. The county commissioners decided, no they've offered 15% too much for the site, so they, in their oversight ability, chose to authorize the school board to offer only $775,000. Needless to say, the county commissioners made a big mistake. A third buyer came in and offered almost $900,000 for the site, $895,000. Considerably more than the school board had offered, but substantially more than what the county commissioners had authorized. These wise and sagacious old guys on the county commission, because of their business background, aren't any smarter than the other folk making decisions. We got business people on the school board, as in any elective body. I suggest to you that this is just a way to play politics with our kids. It’s a way to take away the ability to manage the schools and do the kind of programming and public education that will enable kids in the Wake County public school...

?? To continue achieving at a high level, and so Mr. President with that being said I would like to ascend forth a couple of amendments and the first one, its in reverse order, the one that has 51 on it [SPEAKER CHANGE] Clerk ?? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Blue moves to amend The bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE]Okay does everyone have that on their dashboard? Senator Blue is recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] And my dashboard didn't come up Mr. President. 51 if I make no mistake is the one that, excuse me a minuet let me come up and look at it, my dashboard is messed up. 51, I have it thank you very much, 51, ?? ladies and gentlemen because Senator Haunt believes as I do that the best form of government is a form that is closest to the people. And nothing is more ?? Then the ability to vote and so if in fact the ??citizens in Wake county truly believe that the decisions about citing, constructing and managing schools ought to belong to the county commissioners in a way differently then they manage it rather then the school board, then they ought to be able to vote on it. All of us believe in often and frequent elections this simply gives the citizens of wake county, who are our ultimate bosses the ability to decide who they want managing the physical facilities for the school systems in wake county and so it would put it to referendum to the voters in wake county and then we would know absolutely how our citizens here want their schools maintained and owned I move for the adoption of the amendment, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Is there further discussion or debate on amendment one? Senator Hunt for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. President just to respond I have a couple of points, thank you Mr. President, a couple of points on senator blooms remarks regarding the county commission construction expertise. I think they just finished a rather good sized court house building in downtown Reilly, I really don’t know the price tag but I knew it was substantially under budget I think its was 20 million plus, probably more in the range of 30 and 40 million dollars but it was several million dollars under budget. I don’t recall seeing that kind of performance exhibited by Wake country school board construction activities. Regarding business acumen In southern wake county our school board tried to pay 8 million dollars for a school site and some time later… well the county commissioner refused to go along with it and ultimately bought that site for 4 million dollars, half price, so that’s just a comment about the business acumen of our school board members. About 25% of our Wake county... [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Hunt are you speaking to the amendment that was offered [SPEAKER CHANGE] yes I'm getting to the expertise of the County commission, thank you Mr. President. So my point is our electorate Gives an opportunity to vote for county commissioners, they vote for them based on their expertise in running the county and this is an interval, school construction is an interval part of county commissioners, of county activities I urge you to ?? The amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] further discussion or debate on amendment 1. ?? Is on question for the senate is the passage for amendment 1 to the senate committee substitute to house bills 726 all in favor will vote Aye or oppose will vote no five seconds will be allowed for the voting clerk record the vote. 8... Tillman no, Tillman Aye? [SPEAKER CHANGE] no [SPEAKER CHANGE] Tillman No, Bryant aye. 9 having voted in the affirmative and 26 voting in the negative. Amendment one fails and house bill 726 is back before you Senator Blue for what purpose do you rise [SPEAKER CHANGE] to send forth an amendment [SPEAKER CHANGE] clerk ?? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Blue moves to amend a bill [SPEAKER CHANGE] Senator Blue has the floor [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you very much Mr. President I thought I made a convert out of Senator Tillman I feel like a failure...

him the assignment as he makes you say if it passes, effective December thirty one twenty fourteen after you asked the election in this county fresheners are one of the things that it does that I don't quite understand, and a lot of other folks don't with the split in the commissioners on the weather. they wanted to. except this power, but to ensure that it is not to take geospatial friends or anything else in and it's a full open process. so once again, the commissioners take over this isn't to say that if I go after the next election of county commissioners and the fact that the commission has decided it one exercises power in the act would expire so that achieves what some of the hunch trying to achieve. that is, given the County commissioners about what it puts it so that they exercise that power after the next election, and if the voters awakened human being. this is important enough to elect the board of county commissioners in this event issue in the campaign that they wanted takeover of controlling construction and management of video school facilities just common sense kind of amendment eliminates possibility for any kind of our favorite treatment of whatever else might motivate the commissioners want to change this now just as when trying to issue about a billion dollars and about this president on the adoption of women is further discussed in all amendments or negative of ahead of several public commissioners of expressed concern over the possibility that the school board foundation in El Paso. they were concerned him for instructions of the bounding past so we do want about the past and I think is the best way to get it done, argued that the bank was suitable for purpose routes and have a question, sir. how do you guess you simplify the fact that Hamas are demonstrate (s) that the commission has a childlike in this election will have the power of the Temple of the construction of management and design of the schools in wake County Magnus enhanced mobility of the bond passed because the citizens would then have an opportunity to express a preference benefit like the memo. the commissioners of this power. what if they don't like to think of the conditions that have power for the commission is insufficient to campaign for the disco stigma method to carry commissioners meeting other responsibility and express an interest in assuming that responsibility expressed concern of the likelihood of success if they don't have responsibility for this), I can push the button yield for follow-up question to you and discuss the accounting profession is going to success in the bond issue with this issue is not resolved prior to the government foundation, citizens can participate. the unit for you. the nightlife on what yes I think at the end of this, the legislation passed that allowed academicians to have this responsibility, the likelihood of the passage of the line passing will be increased [SPEAKER CHANGES] the survey in question was that it is a passage of amendment two two, while the Senate committee substitute House Bill seven twenty six. all unfavorable but I'll close the bug notify a second bill out of the voting clerk will coordinate but not having voted in the affirmative and twenty six in the negative file amendment two fails the bills back before you further discussed by the servlet or procure us. you have the floor has a pizza that I have via my fortune. the phone is something in his face French Justice John Roberts

And it was a week after they had decided, the week of their decision on the Voting Right Act and various other things, and I've had several occasions to meet the Chief Justice and to be at various events. And as I was driving back from West Virginia last Saturday, three weeks ago, I was reflecting on some of the wisdom that he had expressed in his decision about the Voting Rights Act, in Section 4, and his opinion said that the case in 1965 or 1980 or even later than that is different than the case in 2013. As I was reflecting on that, you know, and his point was you need to look at things in light of how they appear at the time rather than a totally historic context. I raised the points yesterday that I raised because it’s ironic that the ability of elected officials, Democrats and Republicans, to work out and resolve issues in the counties that were covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act, that is through collaboration so that they bring something that is acceptable to all of the citizens. And we saw it two times in the bills that were presented yesterday. Is leads apart from what one would have expected of those 40 covered counties. Wake County wasn't a covered county but the reason I share with you Justice Roberts wisdom is perhaps if you looked at the way decisions are made in 2013 in election activities by elected officials as compared to how they were made in 65 or 80. You would flip some of the counties that were cause for more intervention by neutral objective eyes than we currently have. I think that it’s a, that we've had two bills in this Chamber this year that affected Wake County public schools. Neither of them was a bill that was even discussed broadly in the community and certainly not discussed broadly in the delegations that represent Wake County. Not a single one of them was brought to our delegation meetings to talk about. We weren't consulted. At least, I wasn't consulted. My constituency wasn't, and my constituent’s a microcosm of this county, not just a black constituency, and everybody is up at arms about it. The Chamber was up at arms and various other entities, and I suggest to you that collaboration is a way that you do business. It is a way that you keep things moving forward rather than putting people at odds and constantly going after each other with sabers. This is a bad bill for Wake County, and I think a lot of you know that. And that’s why you’re not anxious and clamoring to put your counties into the same situation, but you’re willing to do it to Wake County because we’re blindly wedded to this concept of partisanship. I think it’s working to our detriment. It’ll continue working to our detriment. I know that you’re going to vote for this bill, but I hope your conscience is somewhere that will remind you later on that you could’ve made a difference. And you could’ve had some impact on how the largest school district in this county is going to fair because most of you, most of you at some point think about where your kids live when they graduate, and they come to places like this or they stay in North Carolina rather than going up north like everybody had to do when I graduated to get decent jobs, and that’s because of good schools. So I hope that you will look at this bill in a broader sense than narrow way that we tend to look at some things, and you realize the detrimental effect it will have on Wake County, and you’ll defeat it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is amazing to me having been here. This is my eleventh year. The selective amnesia that has been developed now by the minority party, and going forward, I look back to the time frame of 2002 to 2010 when I sat on that back row, and I didn't hear any of this appeal brought forth by the folks in the front row how we need to work together. How we need to do this, how we need to do that. So it amazes me since 2010 we need to develop a conscience like they've had. I guess they've just hid it that eight years. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, would you accept a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gladly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields.

deaths of times had a hand that that would have had a five-cent-and-a-dozen I'll bet is suggesting that the event that non-designed the head of the times that the domination that, as a bus-agent has announced that the pressure that, and then send the model is your soul and then-district wants and how Sunday's the time the center's acting, but the FDA-the-high 25 would have been uneven of the message watch times at mission on us an idea of some of the day-to-business- to-seven systems, that's it, that is an hour's work in the central SNA weather that wouldn't comment times, the sentences of the state that time , then this, that those of us to play such as fast as a high-rises to say the seven house that day, seven oz that the process, but it didn't hurt us child, and soon as that we stayed to five in the city has released the letter must persuade sign is the only part of some kind of the foreign debt, and that is about to realizing this mission of the times registration in this is our kids-processing and-white Moorpark share of city, in time , the business, and as the menu is not surprised that it was the center of the own tile is that the U.S. said about that, the band can take a missionary states us to you, and some resolution in government and the construction of a receipt I'll have the chance that, and then, he's concerned that event, to address the countywide time Dataquest U.S. visit, and white, § Chinese me and says that all is on the night as a state to the public that would be interested, said it has certainly been adding that events-fund rile process and 1/3 cup of water stress long as the fashion questions from centennial as (SPEAKER CHANGES) U.S. senate, and the other county, state and number one, times as the structure of the mourners fish and then-husband, seventies and rich, and the senate has invested in the city and state and local mail , service and that's where you have a hard time, the all-the--- offs: 14 Carries mission Morgan center, in coral capitol time of the international: four years-the system and why it's so happens. It's just that we can't measure from school hours were centered that wasn't not sent I'm off in the defense system operator of the national definitions when the 31, in the school board spin off somewhere in the nation by the court the time that you ought to be able to resolve the situation all of his arrest warrant has assets of stone, she projected measures are time- NASA mission workers are made of metal responsibilities to fund money and sex and have schools and Marilyn signed copy of a dismal ??growing body of the students, and that's about 77 straight one and only detect this issue on the table in the school board rejected timecard for smart start the process and the the time of zero-handed, and this is the data is the second, they serve on this and that is one of them ??..........

Chatter that handle it, either ????that all its mayor's wife commissioners that you that this requires that meant that all the central issue: five novelist, since taxpayers and you should process and White Center for us to the point out Seattle-time as members of his biathlon partners of city high school, and from all that is appropriate that gets it all in the fight to the asset, I'm business is off and means process and the year-old son is a maximum sentence of the canals below 7.6 on timing of-the-in 5 seconds behind the report for the ??26 anybody from the denominated in all cities of the house bill Simon and Simon said the moment that the judge added incentive money on his first child, said it will perjure off enforcement of support, send 4 to 400 mile from ??and option for improvements in Thailand offered in the reporting period of divisions and offered in bills and six of building by an act and onetime own comment before suspicion of its owner of that section that we won the time of the of the finance and accounting for all 70 with those of us have a lot more incentives for five and windows in November and 7¢ house bill 76 for a time that the pentagon that all the offices of action, on a recent war Johnson to medium of reports and even into the center of the time, in one form of 7581 status for a one-time savings rate of finish this amazing and seven of mis-use them as an independent that stems from the nation's-centered, spanning the senate aide for anti-trust said dismantling as well as the command centers and that issue of shares at about two-and-a seven-times-did-Time National honor society of the ??than that and still have a definition that as of this has been sent back to consider some, the commission and the others enhanced 2¢ a pair of this is a man safety of the Schaefer’s for the edition questions, and that invest for the city is the passage of the substance of the life of me wants a career of the rule of the husband of the time the last minute for women 30¢ anybody for an unindicted follicles of the times of it was the second reading and with one section it was part of the doesn't have the as-time you're in the question before the senate has passed all 30 of the substance and builds on any one of our own Federal side, those men in a senate and the substitute senate bill, it was as the starting and will be sent the time ????????...........

Senator Brown has an excused absence for the remainder of the session. House Bill 74, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 74, Regulatory Reform Act of 2013. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, before you get started on that, Senator Hunt has an excused absence for the remainder of the session. Senator Jackson is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Senate, I first want to thank the environmental staff that has worked so hard on this legislation because this is a combination of House Bill 94, that you've heard at least three times, if not four. Actually I've heard it so much, I was up at four-thirty this morning wondering how I was going to present this bill. So I'm gonna tell you briefly how I'm gonna present it. It's a combination of the House PCS to Senate Bill 112 and House Bill 94 and we added it into the House Bill 74. Sections 25 through 58, this is a 60 section bill. I'll be happy to go through each section but I'm gonna, if you would bear with me and I'll try and brief it as shortly as possible. The following sections are from House Bill 94, which the Senate has already voted out of chamber. Sections 25 through 58. The following sections are from the House PCS to Senate Bill 112, Sections 1 through 24. The Department of Environmental and Natural Resources has approved the following sections. Section 18, Sections 20 through 22, 25 through 33, Sections 36 through 38, Section 42, 46, 48, 53, 55 through 57. Here are the purely technical provisions. Sections 33, 37, 38, 48, and 57. There was two amendments added to this bill yesterday during the Rules Committee. One was in Section 40 that defines and clarifies the term “public entity”. And the section was added to Section 59, which actually states that a legislative research commission may study any of the following. Disciplinary hearings and the right to counsel under Part 3 of Article 1 of Chapter 116. The state personnel status of deputy commissioners, industrial commission, pre-emption of certain government ordinances, childcare provider criminal background checks, regulatory requirements applicable to sanitary landfills, spirits or liquor sales by distilleries to tour patrons, regulation of digital dispatching services, and the professional employment organization. The Senate felt like these needed to be studied and studied enacted. I will be more than happy to attempt to answer any of your questions but to my knowledge this is a good bill. There is some areas I'm sure that the House will not agree with so I am pretty sure we will go to concurrence on this thing. But I would ask for your support and I'll be glad to answer any of the questions. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion of debate? Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Jackson a series of questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll do one question at a time. Senator Jackson, do you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Senator Jackson, I just had a chance to review this bill this morning but if I look to page six, Section 153A449, there are provisions here dealing with the ability of local governments, be it a city or a county, it appears that it would prohibit them from having say livable-wage ordinances. I know our city, the city of Durham, which I was part of their city council for eight years, we adopt livable-wage ordinances to make certain that when the city entered into agreements with contractors doing business in the city of Durham for public contracts, they wanted to make sure that the individuals that were providing services for some of those contracts were paid livable wage, to get them outside of the federal poverty guidelines. Now how does this square with the ability of cities or counties that have livable-wage ordinances to continue them? Because it would seem to implicitly, from what I'm reading, perhaps prohibit that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, you have the floor to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Senator McKissick, the bill basically states a county may not require a private contract under this section to abide by any restrictions that the county could not impose on all employers in the county, such as paying minimum wage or providing paid sick leave to

employees as a condition of being on a contract. To answer part of your question, I think this is a fair statement that we require of our contractors, because your standard of living I'm sure is much more than my standard of living. And to deem what is a reasonable living wage is certainly prone to interpretation, at best. So I think this is a good provision in this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would it prohibit--because the next provision deals with cities, and that one deals with counties--would it prohibit livable-wage ordinances adopted by, say, a city council or by county commissioners that would be narrowly drawn, purely to, basically public contracts and things of that nature? Would that be prohibited underneath this language? It would appear to be so, but is that a correct interpretation, or if you're unable to answer that, then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To respond, Mr. President, that is not, in my opinion, the intent of this language. My understanding of the intent of this language is it is not to force what I have just previously said, something that could be deemed as interpretable in many ways of what a living wage is. We have state laws that set, and federal laws that set minimum wage, and I think everybody has to abide by those laws, and I think that's what this section is trying to accomplish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask another question on another provision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, I draw your attention to page 7, sections 8A and sections 8B, and I'm trying to determine exactly what it would potentially prohibit in terms of local billboard regulations. Durham has had local billboard regulations over 20 years, with amortization provisions dealing with what type of billboards can be in that city. Would this language prohibit local ordinances dealing with the regulation of billboards? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In section A, it starts out "notwithstanding any law to the contrary." And the intent, from what I understand of these two sections, section A and B, is that it will allow the billboards to cut down trees that are maybe blocking them, but at the same token they cannot cut down any more area than they can--have been currently under the law we passed last session. But to answer your question, would it prohibit it? It says in part B, "No municipality, county, local, or regional zoning authority or other political subdivision shall, without the payment of just compensation as provided for in General Statute 136-131.1, regulate or prohibit the repair or construction of any outdoor advertising for which there is in effect a valid permit issued by the Department of Transportation so long as the square footage of its advertising surface area is not increased." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Parmon, it appears that your microphone is on. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A follow-up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, I guess the thing I'm concerned about is in that section B that's referred to is whether if we have a city which has enacted local billboard regulations which allows for amortization, which is looking at the useful life of the billboard and saying if that's five years, seven years, what have you, that after a certain period of time, that would be just compensation that would fulfill any duty for, relating to a taking, if that billboard was not allowed to continue to be in existence. And if you're unable to answer that question, I respect that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're asking about amortization, and I'm not seeing anything in here about that, so I can't answer what you're asking. So I'll pass on that one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question about another provision. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you would draw your attention to page 8, dealing with transportation impact analysis. In the language here it would appear to state, and I'm beginning at line 20 and of course it goes all the way down to 33, that there would not be an ability for local cities to require transportation impact

Analysis perhaps as per the zoning process are to require the particular applicant dealing with the rezoning or development plan to institute traffic mitigation practices that would be recommended. Am I interpreting that correctly or is this language that you can explain further? [Speaker Changes]: Mr President [Speaker Changes]: Senator [Speaker Changes] Motion please [Speaker Changes] You have the floor. State the motion [Speaker Changes] I move the rules be suspended to [??] and staff may join Senator Jackson on the floor [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson [Speaker Changes] Senator McKissick we will go and try get you some answers [Speaker Changes] Excellent. If you could that would be very helpful [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson, Senator McKissick has posed the question. You need him to repeat it or do you have it? [Speaker Changes] Yes sir I would well how wants it just brief me. Yes sir, we need it repeated [Speaker Changes] Would you repeat the question? [Speaker Changes] The question is whether the local government could continue to have transportation impact analysis conducted by an applicant perhaps a rezoning request and if that showed that mitigation factor is needed to be implemented would they be able to continue those practices which currently exists commonly in many communities in your state. [Speaker Changes] Mr President [Speaker Changes] Senator Brock [Speaker Changes] I can be able to take that question [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson The question was posed to you. Senator Brock indicates an ability to answer that question. Senator McKissick would you direct your question to Senator Brock [Speaker Changes] Sure. Senator Brock. Is the same question on the transportation impact analysis ability of the cities throughout the state to continue to have ordinances that require that first analysis be conducted and second that implementation of the traffic mitigation measures would perhaps be required based on the studies that are done impact studies that might be conducted. [Speaker Changes] Senator Brock has the floor to answer the question [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr President. Senator McKissick. Exactly what’s happening is we have cities that are passing ordinances against businesses that makes them hard to find a way for the employees to get to work. Many times these businesses that have low income or low income wages is low revenue or low yield revenue businesses such as grocery stores. If you are settling to make your employees provide transportation, the costs of that runs up, which means that you cannot have the grocery stores in Derm. And I believe from what I have heard from the concerns of people in Derm or the city of Derm [??] having the privilege License tax this ordinance is putting grocery store out of the city of derm. We are putting unnecessary cost of burden to the business owners in the city. And the city of derm actually asked what would it take to bring the grocery store to derm. And when we had a tax debate privilege license is one of them and this is the other. We are putting unfair burden upon business owners to field transportation for its employees. That might be a question better suited for transit authorities in Derm more so than putting unnecessary burden on the business owners. [Speaker Changes] Senator McKissick You have the floor for [Speaker Changes] If I could, staff could provide some further elimination [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson, can you respond to the question [Speaker Changes] I will. Senator McKissick, if you look at [??] 21 this is as good as I know how to explain it along with staff said [??] and [??] have done a great job in explaining it to me is that No city may enact or regulate an ordinance will the regulation that require enforce the financial, legal or another responsibility for the mitigation of the employees commute or transportation to or from the employers work place which may result in the employer being subjected to [??] of the monetary and legal or may be the consequences. So basically in my opinion to what your question is No. [Speaker Changes] Senator McKissick what purpose do you raise? [Speaker Changes] probably might ask one additional question about other provision here? [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson, he appeals [Speaker Changes] And of course the other provision is exempting mining and energy commission for preparing physical notes because on page 26 and 32.if, I guess the question is why would we want to proceed in that direction and not require that .It’s my understanding is that the members of the mining energy commission would not like to have the policy put in.

...place and if we have ever listened or taken heed to what they have requested as commissioners? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I would like to ask if Senator Newton would like to address this question. I think he had an amendment that ran into this one and he may be able to clarify it much better than I. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, you posed the question. Do you have any objection to Senator Newton responding to it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] None whatsoever. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, if he will restate the question, please, Mr. President. I was not paying that close attention when he asked it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, Senator Newton. It was dealing with the provision dealing with the Mining and Energy Commission to eliminate a requirement that they prepare, that physical notes be required. And it is my understanding that members of that commission did not favor this policy. Is that your understanding, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My best recollection, Senator McKissick, is that all the parties agreed that that would be a way that, and no, actually I don't recall it that way. I thought that, I understood that members of the Mining and Energy Commission approved that. That that was a way that we could expedite moving forward on the shale gas industry. To not have it be bogged down with physical notes for things that we really don't, at this point, have a way of measuring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, and Mr. President, one final question to Senator Jackson and his staff there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, if you would, I had a couple of members indicate they're having some trouble hearing you, so if you could... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold the mic closer? Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would help. Senator Jackson, do you yield for another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, I know that you have staff available to you. Perhaps they could provide some further clarity on the ability to have local, livable wage ordinances that might be adopted by communities. Would that, in fact, be prohibited? Or if the staff, they would... [SPEAKER CHANGES] [laughs] I think my answer I gave you awhile ago is about as good as we're going to come up with here today, Senator McKissick. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No further clarification? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Overall, there's some good portions of this bill, but there's some portions of this bill that give me very deep concerns. It looks as if the language here would prohibit livable wage ordinances by communities when they might just say we want to make sure that the employees that are hired by public contractors who are doing business with the city are paid a certain amount because we want them to be above the Federal minimum wage level, and in terms of the income they would receive as part of public contracts. It would appear that this would prohibit that. It would also appear that when in terms of transportation impact analysis and ordinances that may be enacted locally, and I emphasis locally, because what's right for a major urban area in this State may not be right for part of the rural area of this State. But it would prohibit their ability to basically have any type of ordinances, practices and policies that they would deem fit and appropriate. I think they ought to have the ability to have. Likewise, it looks to me, and I'm still not any clear about this, but if you look at these issues dealing with billboards. I know Durham's had billboard ordinances that have gone up to the court of appeals, and of course they were decided favorably that allowed for basically a prohibition of billboards within the city itself along major highways, Federal highways, U.S. highways. And they were allowed for amortization over time to compensate those that built those billboards. It would appear, based upon my reading, and of course that's the disadvantage when we don't go through a lot of discussion about these. It kind of a compilation of many ideas in a single bill that that might be prohibited, as well. And from what I have read, there's also some concern about the lack of requirement for physical notes by the Mining and Energy Commission. So on the whole, when I look at these particular concerns, and I'm sure there are others, and I guess kind of peruse this while I've been in the Chamber this morning. But these kind of stuck out like sore thumbs. It gives me concerns so I can not support the bill in whole and in total, even though there are good provisions that are part of the bill. So I would encourage members to basically vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I represent Chatham County which is one of the counties that will be greatly affected if fracking is approved and goes into effect. And I'm particularly concerned over the section on page 20, lines 6 through 32. I have...

...have heard from many, many of my constituents in Chatham County about this particular provision. And that is that they will not know what chemicals are affecting possibly their water, their wells. This is a very serious problem because we don't know. And it is not right to jeopardize the drinking water without having a knowledge of what actually is in those chemicals. Now I know that people have told me that what this is is a formula, that they will release the chemicals but not the formula. As I understand from people that know the chemistry, very often the formula is crucial. So in addition to the questions raised by Senator McKissick, because my constituents are so concerned over this section I am going to vote against the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Senator Kinnaird yield for a question please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, were you aware that if we don't have this provision that our current trade secret law would prohibit the disclosure of any of the chemicals in the fracking process? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am not aware of that, but what I have been told is that there are ways to write a text, and also the energy and mining commission have spoken on this, I mean I'm not the only one nor are my constituents the only ones who are concerned over this. And certainly we can craft something which would allow them to have those chemicals disclosed in a way that does not jeopardize the trade secrets but protects my constituents. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask a follow up if she'll yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator will you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, were you aware that the chairman of the MEC has let us know that he and the board is fine with this language. Were you aware of that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I have not heard that, and I would like to contact them further to find out so that I know that my constituents are safe and I will further that. But in the meantime, I'm not satisfied nor are my constituents that this is a safeguard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I speak to the bill, Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. And, briefly, members, as it relates to this provision, this is something that's been worked on very carefully with the MEC and all the parties. We have a dilemma here. We obviously need to make sure that we have a knowledge base of what chemicals are being used in the hydraulic fracturing process. And this is the mechanism that we do that. It's important that we know essentially what is being used, but we don't really need to know the formula. We don't know the secret recipe for Coca-Cola even though people drink it, we don't know a lot of things that we consume the exact, precise percentages of what is used and the exact formula. But it is important that we know what's in it. And that's what this process does. The other thing you need to keep in mind is is that the state does not need to possess the trade secrets. If the state possesses the trade secrets then the state is responsible for the litigation that will ensue trying to get at those trade secrets. Others need to keep the trade secret; they need to keep the recipe. We just need to know what the materials are so that if there's ever an issue, we know what we're dealing with. This is...this is a similar method that's been used in other places and this is a consensus point. The fear-mongering and sky is falling mentality of the radical environmentalists on this point is just simply not founded. And this is overall an excellent bill and this is an excellent provision. We need to vote for it, so I concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's easy to throw around terms like radical environmentalist. And it's easy to disparage people who are very concerned over their health and their children's health. I do not think that this is comparable to the formula for Coca-Cola, which we all drink, and these chemicals, which none of us would drink. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Parmon, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I could, to ask the sponsor a question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He'll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, on page six starting at line 35, there is something dealing with fraternities, sororities and unified....[AUDIO ENDS]

A development ordinance. Could you explain that for me please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Parmon, which line on page 6? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Starting at line 35. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [PAUSE] Basically this actually is so that local governments cannot treat the fraternities that are recognized differently. Recognized by a university differently than those that are not. Does that answer your question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not really, but I’ll take that. I’ll settle for that. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Senator Pate, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Jackson a question, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know you’ve been on the hot spot here long enough but I do have one question. This bill is a compilation as I understand it of several bills. It seems to me I read something one time about the makeup of the industrial commission and hearing officers. Was that part of one of these bills, Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. To answer, Mr. President. Yes sir, that was part of it. At one time, that is what has been put into the study review that the amendment that was done in Rules yesterday took that out and put it into a study, legislative review. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage on, before we get to that, members of the Senate, Senator Hise is back in the chamber. Question before the Senate is the passage on second reading of the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 74. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for voting. Clerk will record the vote. [PAUSE] Bryant, no. 26 having voted in the affirmative, and 7 in the negative, the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 74 has passed its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] North Carolina General Assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage on third reading of the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 74. All in favor will say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it and the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 74 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the House to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute. [LONG PAUSE] House Bill 522, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 522, foreign laws protect constitutional rights. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton’s recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Members, this is the, essentially the same bill or part of the same bill that we already passed earlier in 695, that dealt with foreign laws and the application of foreign laws in our state courts as it relates to domestic matters. What I’m trying to tell you is we’ve already voted on this and passed this exact language. When the House got 695, they didn’t include this piece in it when they sent it back to us in Senator Harrington’s bill. I forget the bill number, on motorcycle safety. And, but this is already passed the House overwhelmingly as well. So this is just a cleanup mechanism, putting in this bill. I’m happy to try to answer any questions you have but essentially it forbids the application of foreign laws in our domestic courts, if those foreign laws would substantially impair the rights of an individual here in the United States. And that’s as summarized as I can put it. So I commend it to you, happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Senator ?? to what purpose do you rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will Senator Newton yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, I want to make sure that I clearly understand this, so that our members do too. But as I understand it, the supremacy clause of the United States Constitution says that basically the federal constitution controls everything in the United States. But secondary to that, congressionally enacted laws and state constitutions. Now

Do not the state constitution and the federal constitution dictate the law that has to be used in the the courts of this country and since they do, do they not prohibit the use of the law of any other country if it contravenes the law as established by the United States or state constitutions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, thank you Senator Blue. There's no doubt about the supreme law of the land being the Constitution and about the Supremacy clause and about congressional acts. Unfortunately, we have judges from time to time as you're familiar with as you operate well in the courtroom, as do I , that sometimes seem to forget what the supreme law of the land is and sometimes make improper rulings and this has happened on occasion. I believe it's been documented a minimum of twenty seven cases from around the country where foreign laws and in particular I think Shariah law being the most common law that has been woven into court decisions that have worked to deprive citizens and legal aliens of United States of their otherwise constitutional rights, in the domestic setting in particular. This bill is designed to address that and make it easy for the judges to understand that they cant for example take a foreign judgment that dealt with a domestic matter that maybe involves Shariah law that may work to the disadvantage of say perhaps an american female citizen and under the anti-feminine aspects that sometimes are applied in Shariah law work to deprive a United States citizen of her constitutional rights as it relates to a domestic matter. That's what this bill is about. To make it really clear so some of our elected judges here in North Carolina don't go start bringing in stuff that's not in our law.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me follow up Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sir ?? Understand that I support this law and playing a vote for it but I wanted to make sure that there may have been some transgressions by trial courts in applying the wrong law but the purpose of the tiered judicial system is so that wiser heads apply the law as it's supposed to be. And so, am I correct that in using principles from conflicts of laws which basically says which laws will apply that there is no case where an appellate court in this country has allowed any of these mistakenly entered judgments in the trial courts to stand. That is, the appellate courts have all reverted back to what they're supposed to and that is to follow the law which is to apply the constitution of the United States, the constitutions of the various states that may be involved so that there is no specific instant after judicial review where Shariah law has been the governing law in any operable case in the country. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Thank you Senator Blue. I'm glad to hear you'll support the bill. I am not the bill sponsor. I agreed to carry it on the floor and unfortunately I wasn't able to attend the second committee hearing on this bill yesterday because I had to go to Rules Committee. So I don't know specifically the answer to your question. I cant say yes or no that no appellate court hasn't gotten it right in the end. What I do know is and I'm sure you will recall that can be sometimes a very costly proposition for an american citizen who perhaps had it done wrong to them on the trial level. It may be beyond their resources to continue to to appeal it and quite honestly I can envision scenarios where a trial court may allow something like say custody and a child may be whisked out of the country or something like that before the citizen would be able to do anything about it on an appellate level. you know, sometimes you're gonna have to get a stay at a higher level and if you cant afford to carry it to that court you might have a problem so while you may be entirely correct that all these cases we know about have been corrected by the appellate courts in the end we still don't know that that's not gonna cause alot of problems for our citizens in the meantime. I think we aught to go ahead and just make it clear to the trial courts that , don't drag this stuff into our courtrooms. Thank you Senator Blue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate?[SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ?? , for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To as Senator Newton a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, do you yield?

yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What is...who is the audience for this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not sure I understand your question, Senator. The audience? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess the people of North Carolina and this chamber, I suppose? I'm not sure what you're getting at. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What about judges? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly judges would be included in that category. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well if it's primarily for judges, wouldn't the answer... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Wouldn't the answer be judges? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly judges would be included in that category. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yep. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And how is this going to be disseminated to the judges? [SPEAKER CHANGES] How is this going to be disseminated to the judges? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. They have conferences. And they have updates on laws. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, every time we pass a law and it becomes the law of the state of North Carolina I am certain that they are updated in their conferences, and I would expect a learned jurist to pay attention to the laws that we enact in this state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Comment. Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am not going to vote for this bill because I think the audience is really wider. And I think your answer indicated that the audience is a lot wider than the district court judges of the state of North Carolina. I would expect that in the conference, and they do have conferences where they are updated regularly on the new laws that we pass, this would be allowed maybe five minutes. And I imagine that the result will be, in speculation, is, a first of all, that they'll laugh. And secondly of all, that they will probably be insulted. So I intend to vote against this law because I think it is unnecessary and the audience is wider than our judicial system, the district court judges. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Senator Tucker, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Senator Kinnaird a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, I'm certainly not a lawyer. I'm one of those normal people that Senator Apodaca talks about. I'm just concerned about that comment that you made that it may be insulting to the judges. They certainly have been sworn to uphold the laws of the Constitution of both the country and the state. But does this in any way imply in your comment that you would be in favor of foreign law or Sharia law being used in the US? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that when we pass unnecessary laws, it is unnecessary. We've spent money on this. We've spent time debating it. Why are we doing unnecessary laws when, as Senator Blue so correctly pointed out, they are sworn, as we are, to uphold the Constitution. Why are we telling them something that they absolutely do not need? As I say, I think the audience is not judges. I think the audience is a larger area. And, if I may go beyond my remarks here to say there are only fourteen lawyers in this body, and yet we take a lot of criticism, which is unnecessary under rule ten. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rise to ask Senator Newton a question, if he will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, as you're aware, this law goes beyond Sharia law because it talks about all foreign law being considered in these domestic cases. And I present to you a hypothetical and ask you how it might be handled under these particular provisions of this law if enacted. We have a couple married over in England. Prior to marriage they execute a premarital agreement or prenuptial agreement dealing with the distribution of their assets, spousal support, and the like. They both are aware of the law of the land when it's executed. One of the parties, maybe both of them, move to the United States. They subsequently end up in a divorce proceeding. Should their prenuptial agreement executed in England underneath the laws of that country, which ordinarily you could present testimony about and information about to the district court judge presiding over the case, not be enforced? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's your question? Your hypothetical? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator McKissick, I appreciate the question and I think it will be illustrative to this body as well as to the public as to what this bill is actually about. As you are well aware.... [AUDIO ENDS]

The common law of England is the route basis for our judicial system in the United States. And our contract law is essentially similar to what the laws would be of England, and I cannot in your hypothetical, envision a system where two parties who, knowing what they're doing at arm's length transaction, had a meeting of the minds and a prenuptial agreement as you described, I can't imagine how our courts would rule that a citizen's rights were being violated by such a contract. Now if that contract is on its face unconstitutional because it has, I can't imagine what it would be but it has some unconstitutional provisions, I suppose this law could possibly have some affect on the entrance of that to our court system. But considering their similarities between our judicial system and the basic routes of our judicial system coming form the common law of England, I have a very, very difficult time imagining why that would be. And I will add this, I think we could sit here all day long, and probably until Sunday, and envision 3,000 hypothetical of how this bill might come into effect. I would just simply add, Senator McKissick, we've already had this bill before us as a body, it's already passed the House by overwhelming majority, it's passed this body by overwhelming majority, and quite honestly, I don't see the point of going through hypothetical exercise of how this would be effective to our courts. The point of it is to say that the law of the United States, and the law of North Carolina is what we are going to apply here, not everybody else's law. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up for further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I no longer yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He does not yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Well, my comment then, Mr. President, on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]When this bill became before us previously, it was basically dealing with spanning rules and regulations dealing with abortions in this state, and regulation of abortion clinic's ability to offer incureance under health benefits as Can Kids, or county governments, city governments to offer health benefits dealing with a with abortion or so, this particular side of what came before us really didn't receive substantial discussion. That hypothetical, which I just posed, was based upon a real world factual situation in which I was personally involved in, and was very much aware of. Now we may be lucky if we had a judge, because right now judges can't consider that foreign law, and you can put it before them and they can consider it. Unfortunately when sometimes we enact laws, we end up with unintended consequences. Suppose that coverlet comes from France, suppose that coverlet came from China, or Sri Lanka, or where ever it may have been, why should not the foreign law back here where it can be able to be considered by a judge in determining the enforceability of an agreement? A valid binding agreement. Sometimes we can have unintended consequences that we do not anticipate, that we do not conceive of, and that was outside of the realm of what was contemplated when a bill comes before us. That is what deeply concerns me about this. If it was simply about Sharia Law, that would be one thing, but it's not narrowed, it's not focused. It's about all foreign laws being considered in domestic cases in the courts of the State of North Carolina. and that it's overly broad, and the breathe of it goes beyond what I think most people would contemplate and conceive of, and we need to be exceedingly reluctant and careful when we take that giant quantum leap. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Wade, to what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To ask the bill's presenter a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Newton do you yield? Do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I yield, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. Senator, since I'm not an attorney and not a judge, I'd really like for you to explain this a little bit in layman's terms, and the way I'm understanding this, and I'd like for you to let me know if this is correct, is it really allows the presiding judge to have a better understanding? This bill does? And it might result in a decrease number of appeals, and a speedier resolution, and possibly less cost to the person, that is going before the judge and not having to appeal, and less cost to the state? Would that be the way we could sum it up for a lay person? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Senator Wade. Yes, I do think that is a fair characterization of what the intent of this bill would be. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. President, I would like to speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. President. I really didn't anticipate that we would debate this bill in this way for so long. We as a state, and I think it's common across the United States and at the federal level frequently say that certain aspects can't be included in contracts because they're void as to public policy.

We make decisions about that prior to hypothetical situations that occur all the time. I think it's important that we don't try to read too much into this bill, Senator McKissick. It basically states that the foreign law can't deprive a citizen of their constitutional rights. That's essentially what it boils down to. It doesn't say you can never, ever, ever, under any circumstances, ever at any time, ever from any country anywhere consider a foreign law. It doesn't say that. It just doesn't say that. So this has been fairly narrowly crafted. It's actually been debated quite a bit. We put this bill on for hearing in the J1 Committee on two different occasions and debated it in the J1 Committee when it was in 695 it was thoroughly debated in the House. This is not anything that we need to continue to pound on and get a pound of flesh in this body. I think we all know what the vote is. I would respectfully commend it to the body and ask that we just go ahead and vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage on second reading of the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 522. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote, 31 having voted in the affirmative and 2 in the negative. Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 522 has passed its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] North Carolina General Assembly enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage on third reading of the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 522. All in favor will say aye. All opposed no. The aye's have it and the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 522 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the House on the issue of concurrence in the Senate Committee Substitute. House Bill 652, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 652, Modified Judicial Discipline. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before we get into that bill, members, Senator Bill Rabin is granted an excused absence for the remainder of the session. Senator Newton is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I hope we don't have as much today as with the last bill but this is another provision that this body has already passed by overwhelming majority in the [??] bill and I didn't look at the vote but I believe that this body voted either unanimously or pretty close to it in favor of that. This bill modifies the procedures that are used for judicial discipline. The reason why it's back before us is because one of the bill sponsors in the House did not like this provision being added into the bill and so the House members that are in favor of it agreed to have it be put into this bill so that we can move forward with this. What this bill does is essentially remove from the power of the judicial standards commission to issue a public reprimand of a judge and that authority to issue a public reprimand now rests with the Supreme Court. In other words there can still be a public reprimand but the commission doesn't get to do it on their own. It goes to the Supreme Court. It would make all the records investigations and recommendations of the Judicial Standard Commission and hearings by the Supreme Court confidential until the Supreme Court issues a public reprimand, censor, suspension, or removal. In other words when the Supreme Court makes it public all those records could then be made public. And the third thing it does is it moves to the Supreme Court the ability for the Supreme Court Justices to be disciplined. I know that there is some opposition from some of the Court of Appeals judges and members of the Judicial Commission but other than those who are losing the authority and the control over it I don't know of any opposition. I remind you, again, that I believe this body voted overwhelmingly in favor of these provisions before. I hope I've addressed everybody's questions but, if not, I will be glad to answer any that you may have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a quick question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, make sure I understand this. If we got a judge who is applying Sharia law and somebody takes them before the Judicial Standards Commission then the Judicial Standards Commission can't censor that person for not following the constitution and not applying the proper law but it has to go through another whole

And that is somebody has to petition the Supreme Court to take another look at this judge who's been determined by his peers to be misbehaving. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for your questions, Senator Blue. Actually, I don't think that's right. I think what it would do, it would prevent a public disclosure of that censure. Not that they couldn't censure them, but a public disclosure of all of that until the Supreme Court proved it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On the contrary, I think this is not a good bill, and I will tell you why. You were just talking jokingly about Sharia law, and of course the point of the last bill was so the public would know that everybody is against Sharia law. But this is very serious. There's a reason that the judicial commisssion and a lot of the Court of Appeals and a lot of people in the legal profession around the state are against this. For the very reason that you took the public out several layers down the road. Now judges are elected. This has consequences. The public, very often, will not know, as a result of this bill, between an election and the final disposition in this bill. This weakens the right of the public to know what is happening with our judges. I think this is not a good bill. I think we should vote against it. If the judiciary is against it, we know that there's a reason that they have thought about it. And that is that the public is removed by several layers. So I think it is not a good bill. I think there is a good reason they are against it, and I intend to vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Senator Tillman, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rarely, Senator Kinnaird, do I agree with you. The more light we can shine on the judges' behavior, you're gonna bump into the Supreme Court every time you need to have a complaint, and then we can't ever know what it is because it's sealed. I don't like that and I'm going to vote against it myself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, may I speak a second time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton has the floor to speak a second time on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think it's an excellent job by a couple of people in the Court of Appeals who don't like the fact that they can't blackmail judges into agreeing to whatever reprimand they want to give, with the threat of publicly embarrassing them over nothing. What you're not aware of is that there has been a number of cases where there have been false accusations, or twisted accusations, Senator Tillman, and a few members of the Judicial Commission have said, "If you don't accept what we do, we're going to publicly admonish you and embarrass you, especially right before an election", okay? This does not have anything to do with whether or not a judge is disciplined. This has to do with, it would be up to the Supreme Court as to whether or not that would be made public. Often times, these censures and these reprimands are agreed to simply to avoid it being made public, even thought the judge may not feel that that is appropriate. But if there is something that the public needs to know, there is absolutely nothing that would prevent it from being made public, that all the Supreme Court has to do is approve that. They are, after all, are the chief arbiters of discipline within our judicial system. They're the ones that set up the Judicial Commission. They're the ones that make the rules of court, and so I would encourage you, Senator Tillman, to -- I understand what you said, I agree with you that things should be made public when they need to be made public, okay? Well, I apologize for that, if we'll lose your vote, I guess we'll lose your vote, but it would be a mistake not to pass this. I will remind you also that it is not correct what was proposed to you, that the judiciary is against this. That is false. This came to us from the judiciary. The vast majority of judicial officials want this, including members of the Supreme Court. I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I find myself perplexed here, agreeing with Senator Kinnaird. To me, it sound like lawyers protecting lawyers. When we run for office, if somebody says something about us a week before it, we don't have anywhere to go. I'm voting against this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to make a quick comment, because I'm sure

Senator Newton, as a fellow member of the bar I did not mean to imply that the judicial branch and especially judicial standards is blackmailing judges. I’m sure that he misspoke and I don’t want to give you the impression that that is what’s going on. What they do, it is a process to determine whether a judge has stepped out of bounds in the way that he rules or in his conduct. Whether its ethics or other things related to the conduct of judicial officials. They have formal hearings and they give and take and negotiate as you in any other judicial proceeding to work out a deal so that they can accomplish what should be accomplished, whether it’s getting a person to pay closer attention to the way he or she rules, or how they conduct themselves on the bench or other related stuff.. But I don’t think its blackmail when the official body that’s constituted to deal with these ethical and conduct issues suggests that if you don’t shape up and fly right, this is what’s going to happen to you. It’s just part of the tools they’re using and again I’m sure that Senator Newton didn’t intend to use the word blackmail its just, we get a little excited sometimes when we talk cuz I wouldn’t want you to believe that that kind of process is going on in the judicial branch. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Senator Tillman, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I think we need is a bill Senator Newton, to eliminate the Judicial Standards Commission cuz that’s what we’ve done today. We’ve made them know null and void so that they don’t have a job to do. If you want to do that bill I might help you with it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, the question before the Senate is passage on its second reading of the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 652. All in favor will vote aye, all oppose the vote, no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. 12 having voted in the affirmative and 22in the negative. Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 652 has failed to pass its second reading . Senate Bill 151 for concurrence. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 151, coastal policy reform act of 2013. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. We have worked hard with our friends in the House and come up with a very good compromise and I recommend that we concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The mantle of being the loyal opposition seems to have fallen on my shoulders today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I accept that mantle. What I am concerned are the terminal groins. We actually last year and some of our ?? heard from the people who are downstream from the terminal groins so they are actually going to suffer and I feel as if we are lessening the standards here and that I am very concerned over this. While I believe that this is better than it was, the New Jersification of our shores is a real possibility and for that reason I am voting against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, question before the Senate is the motion to concur in the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 151. All in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting, clerk will record the vote. Brock, aye. 27 having voted in the affirmative and 5, Senator Ron Rabin, aye. 28 having voted in the affirmative and 5, Newton, 28 having voted in the affirmative and 5in the negative, the motion passes and the bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 341. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 341 Amend ?? transport law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabin is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. On this bill I also recommend that we concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none the question before the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Allran, for what purpose do you rise?

To ask Senator Rabon a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabon do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabon, I'll ask you the same question that we asked in committee. Does this, does this make it easier to get an interbasin transfer in any area outside of the coastal area? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, this doesn't, and this is just for modifying those that are in existence. This is not applying to new interbasin transfers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister president? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabon do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr Rabon, is there an easy way for you to tell us what the major changes were from the House? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What the major changes were in the House? There was a, there was a section added in the House, the final section, if you look at your bill, was added by the House, otherwise we went right with our bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rabon do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm, what, Senator, what was the impact of the final section that was added? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The impact on that final section has something to do with the Western part of the state and I believe it eliminates or allows the use of a wastewater treatment and a sewer treatment in the same county. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, question for the Senate is the passage of the motion to concur in the House committee substitute, to Senate bill 341. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. Bryant aye. Newton. Thirty three having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion to concur passes and the bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. For concurrence, Senate bill 379, clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 379, expansion of natural gas and propane for agriculture. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister president. Members, the report that came back on this is, I'll briefly explain it to you, this current language will create an economic development tool to facilitate new or expanded natural gas service and propane accessibility to agricultural products, and it's only for agricultural projects all across the state, so it could be in Wake County, it could be in Orange County, it could be in Sampson County, or it could be in Rutherford County. So it's just for agricultural products and it does not create any new money, it just allows the commerce department and all the economic development engines we have in the state to utilize up to five million dollars of all the funds available for agricultural products. And I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If Senator Jackson would yield for questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wait a minute. Yes sir, I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] During this session, you've done very well. Is there anything else we can do for the agricultural community so that, we'll be willing to stay another week or two if not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho. Not to be negative to you, and I appreciate all that we have done this session for agriculture. But when you go to lunch after a while, I want you to thank me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, question for the Senate is the passage of motion, or the motion to concur, passage of motion to concur of House committee substitute for Senate bill 379. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the vote. Clerk will record the vote. Thirty three having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative the motion passes and the bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President, motion please, relative to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 420, unemployment laws, administrative changes next on the calendar. I ask that it be removed from today's calendar and placed on Tuesday's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President. House bill 491 school resource officers, Lee County, currently committee on appropriations, I move that it be removed from appropriations and rereferred to the committee on rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister president. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Earlier we heard House bill 74, conference, well excuse me, the reg reform bill. I ask that it be sent to the House.

Special messenger [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. House bill of 293. Mortgages safe act currently in J1 has to be removed from J1 and placed on floor calendar for Tuesday July 23rd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No objections. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Additional motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President if any bills accidentally were placed on the Monday calendar I ask that they be removed from Monday and placed on Tuesday's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For concurrence Senate bill 626 Clerk Arieve. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 626, recodify animal shelter law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I have Senator Mckissick, Senator Jackson, Senator Meredith. Senator Mckissick, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We simply ask that you concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing question for the senate is the motion to concur on the House committee substitutes, Senate bill 626. All in favor, will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. Five seconds be allowed for the clerk to record the vote. Ruto aye. Bryant aye. Apadoca aye, Clark aye. Got anybody else? 33 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The motion passes and the Senate bill 626 will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. Notices and announcements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Prodent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apadoca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President having voted with the prevailing side on House bill 652, I move that it be brought back before us for consideration. Modified for ?? discipline. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just one moment. Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, will Senator Apadoca yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apadoca, we bring it back, are we going to vote on it again or are you just going to bring it back? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just going to bring it back, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I support his motion, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is to reconsider the vote on House bill 652. Without objection, Senator Kinnaird. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to understand what we are doing. Senator Apadoca answered Senator Blue that we are not going to debate it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, it would be my understanding that the response to the question was that we were going resurrect the bill but it was not going to be voted on again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It would be taken from the calendar. At this point there is a motion to reconsider the vote by which House bill 652 failed. Is there an objection to that motion? Hearing no objections, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apadoca, for purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, House bill 652, we brought back, I move that we ?? before it to the committee on rules and operations of the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objections, so ordered. Notices and announcements. Are there any notices or announcements? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Barringer. I'd like to change my vote on 652 to aye, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. Senator Barringer. Notices and announcements. Senator Apadoca. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Couple of announcements, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, members of the Republican Party, we're going to caucus immediately after session. Additional announcement Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, there will be a session, I think, scheduled 4 o'clock Monday. Is it 4 o'clock Madam Clerk? 2 o'clock Monday, it'll be, the mortal words of Senator Basenite, a skeletal session. So you don't have to attend the next session will be Tuesday afternoon.

So I want you to watch your e-mails. We probably will have a rules meeting at one or two o’clock on Tuesday. We’ll notify you on Monday afternoon, Monday evening, and other than that have a safe weekend. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. To ask Senator Apodaca a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, never thought I’d miss Senator Nesbitt. Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well our airport is secure. Senator Apodaca, is the House meeting on Monday night? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, I have no idea. Senator Tucker says yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They are meeting Monday night? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices--Senator Allran, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Apodaca a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, do you know the time of the session on Tuesday? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Allran, I think it’s going to be around 4:00. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Think it’s going to be, or it is going to be? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ll definitely put the word out, Senator, if you’ll button that top button and meet the rules code. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the absence of Senator Nesbitt, the democrats will not caucus after session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices or announcements? Is there further business to come before the Senate? If not, the Chair recognizes Senator Pate for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I move that the Senate do now adjourn, subject to the receipt of committee reports, the re-referral of bills and resolutions, the receipt of messages from the House and the governor, the ratification of bills, the appointment of conferees, and the receipt of conference reports, to reconvene on Monday, July 22nd, 2013 at 2:00 p.m. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seconded by Senator Kinnaird. The motion is that the Senate do now adjourn, subject to the stipulations stated by Senator Pate, to reconvene Monday, July 22nd at 2:00 p.m. All in favor say aye, all opposed no. The ayes have it and the Senate stands adjourned.