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

searching for


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

House | July 24, 2013 | Chamber | Session Part 1

Full MP3 Audio File

Speaker: offered by Representative Mark Brody. Members and visitors of the gallery, please stand, and please remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. Chaplain: Let us pray. Almighty god, our heavenly father, you are our fortress and strength. You have given us this good land for our heritage and have called us to serve the people of this good state. We humbly ask you to be our guide during the legislative process. We thank you for the session which is about to conclude and implore you that you will direct the discussions and the decisions that still lay before us. Help us to make decisions that abide by your law, decisions that uphold the general welfare and peace for the people we serve. You are the author and sustainer of all life, and we humbly implore you to make us a people who cherish all life in our midst. You have spoken to us by your word. We beg you to guide our lives as well so that we may be moved to live by the same laws we make, administer and judge for this state. Be with us this week as we finish the business that is set before us and safely return us to our homes. Bless this state, our leaders, and the people we serve. We ask this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. [recitation of the pledge of allegiance by congregation] Speaker: Representative Moore is recognized. Representative: Mr. Speaker, the journal for Tuesday, July 23, 2013, has been examined and found to be correct. I move that [xx] Speaker: Representative Moore moves that the journal for July 23rd be as written as proved. All in favor say aye. [aye] All opposed say no. The aye’s have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, papers, or journals address the general assemblies or house, house ratifications, bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. Clerk: Clerk reports the following bill to be ratified due to resignation of governor senate bill 76 and active provide for automatic view binding commission rules by the general assembly; senate bill 337 act of charter schools advisory board; senate bill 381 an act for correctional facilities; senate bill 420 an act to make technical and administrative clarifications to unemployment insurance laws; house bill 14 an act to make technical and clarifying administrative changes to laws; house bill 359 an act to make changes to the administrative state’s retirement systems; house bill 857 an act authorizing public contracts utilized to design bill method; house bill 937 an act of state firearm laws. Speaker: The house will come to order. Ladies and gentleman of the house, the chair is thrilled to offer a courtesy of the floor to the man in the purple suit, a very good friend and former member, Larry Wable, welcome. [clapping] Speaker: The chair would also like to extend a courtesy of the floor to John Rail, a journalist with a very impressive history of reporting on the story of eugenics in this state. Welcome John. [clapping] Speaker: Representative Moore, please state your purpose. Representative: To make motions pertaining to today’s calendar. Speaker: The gentleman may state his motion. Representative: The first one is actually going to be a re-referral, and that is going to be house bill 618, amend firearm registration law, at the request of Representative Sholley, move that the bill be removed from the calendar and referred to the committee on rules. Speaker: Without objection, so ordered. Representative: Then with respect to house bill 522, title foreign laws protect constitutional rights, that one was

[0:00:00.0] …Following that one that one should have been on today’s calendar would move that and will be added to today’s calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special messages from Senate the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special messages from Mr. Speaker the message sent to the House of Representatives the information the conferees appointed fails to resolve differences rising to bodies on Senate Bill 10: A bill to be entitled an act establishing the government reduction and efficiency act of 2013. And new conferees had been appointed Pro Tempore points, Senator Apodaca, Chair; Senators Brown, Rucho, and Rabon. All parts Senate concur like committee appointed by the body and the differences arise maybe resolved with respect to the ___[00:38] clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker it’s already that needs to be sent to the House of Representatives through the information Senator Burg has been added his conferee to Senate Bill 127 respectfully ___ clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted, Representative Arp is recognized to send forward the conference report the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President senate and the speaker of House Representatives, the conferees appointed to resolve the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 392: A bill to be entitled an act requiring a county department of social services to verify whether an applicant for or recipient of temporary assistance for needy families benefits or food and nutrition services. The conferees recommend that the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Davis, Chair; Senators Hise and Randleman. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Representative Arp, Chair; Representatives Stevens and Horn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [Inaudible] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection House Bill 392, the conference report will be added to today’s calendar so ordered. Representatives Howard, Louis and ___[01:52] are recognized to send forward the committee report the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Louis and ___[01:52] for the Finance Committee, Senate Bill 354: Revise Auditor's Responsibilities favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Committee Substitute without objection to be added to today’s calendar. Representative Moore is recognized to send forward the committee report the clerk with read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore for rules comes up with the house Senate Bill 236: Counties Responsible for School Construction favorable with House Committee Substitute, unfavorable with Senate Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Committee Substitute without objection will be added to today’s calendar. Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 287: Notice Publication by Some Local Governments, favorable is House Committee Substitute; unfavorable is the Senate Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Committee Substitute without objection will be added to today’s calendar. Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable calendar. Ladies and gentlemen the house upon motion of the gentleman from Guilford County, Representative John Hardister and the Chairs are happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to his friend Eddy Guard who is an early college student from Greensboro, Eddy please stand let us welcome you. [Applause] Calendar, the House Bill 293 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Bill 293: A bill to be entitled an act amending the secure and fair enforcement mortgage licensing act to reduce regulatory burdens, making clarifying and technical changes, and modifying certain foreclosure proceedings. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ___[04:10] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I make a motion that we concur with conference report there is a slight technical correction that had to be made, they made that on the floor the Senate has come back to us for concurrence and I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the motion, if not the question before the house is the motion to concur and House Bill 293, all in favor vote aye, all oppose vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 109 having voted affirmative, 3 in the negative, the house has concurred and House Bill 293, the bill will be enrolled… [0:04:59.4] [End of file…]

will be sent to the governor. The house will be at ease. Ladies and gentlemen, we need to properly take that vote. The chair should have read in the amendment before we took the vote, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ?? the bill on page two lines 29 and 30 by adding [SPEAKER CHANGES] And we will strike the prior vote so that we will probably vote on the amendment. So the motion is to concur in the senate ammendment number one for house bill 293. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk ?? machine record the vote. 113 have voted affirmative and one in the negative. The house has concurred, and the senate amendment number one to house bill 293. The bill will be enrolled, and sent to the governor. Senate bill 480, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the president of the senate, and the speaker of the house of representatives, conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the senate and house of representatives on senate bill 480, a bill to enact the acquisition or construction and financed without appropriation the fund of certain capital improvements. The conferees recommend the senate and house of representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the senate, Senator Apodaca, chair, Senator Brunstetter and Brown, conferees for the house of representatives, Representative Howard, chair, Representative Lambert and Hanes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion, and debate that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Folks, this is the bill that we see every year, and we did have a difference in the house version, and then the version that the senate had. Late last evening, the conferees did meet, and we came to an agreement, and I would ask that you do support the conference report. I'd be glad to answer any questions, if you have any. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, in looking at the conference committee, it looks like the conference committee report added back the one change that was made in the finance committee, which was removing a project where one of our universities was purchasing a racetrack. And this will be a two day bill, so we'll have debate tomorrow. But, in researching that particular project, which I wasn't particularly thrilled about, I know that, further discussion has been made with the help of the Forsythe county representatives. But it brings up bigger problems in my mind that I want to look at, and maybe debate tomorrow as well. But the bill is building $500,000,000 more of university buildings, and my understanding from fiscal research is right now, the university system is two billion behind on its repairs and renovations fund, and so it just doesn't seem quite right to me something just doesn't sit right that we're building another half billion in new buildings, and we can keep up with the ones that we've got. So, I will be voting no on the second reading of this, and I would urge you to take a look at the issue for yourself. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lambert, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, this bill has been around here for several weeks now. It was vetted in finance committee as you've heard, the section related to Winston State buying the stadium there from the city of Winston Salem was taken out. Last Monday, the site delegation met with the racetrack management team, Winston State, and the city of Winston Salem. This certainly has been a very involved issue in our community, and is one that we'd like to see accomplished and move forward. What I said to the racetrack folks last week was, if you cannot tell us this is a good move, and you endorse this, we will not do this. In fact, what happened last Monday was the race promoters provided an additional eight points, which we've incorporated into this amendment, or the conference report, that Winston State in fact agree to. Items like, not changing the name of the stadium, so we have all three parties that are endorsing this addition back in

-was in the Senate version but not in the House version. I do endorse it, I do ask for you to approve 480 so we can move forward with this. I think the issues that Representative Jordan raises are good issues, but they’re probably for discussion at another time. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Lambeth yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have the conference report on my computer here. What are the 8 additional things that were added that were not there when the finance committee cut it down? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to, to answer to Representative Stam’s question, they were items that the race promoters felt very strongly that need to be added in and agreed to in the document. Those items included not changing the name of the stadium. Obviously that stadium has a long history in our community, it goes back to 1938 and they have agreed not to change the name. Not to use any of the current parking or property that’s designated as part of the stadium, to be used by Winston state to build dormitories or other facilities. In other words to protect the current areas that are currently designated as part of the stadium. The race promoters do not charge for parking, a lot of events do charge for parking. Winston state has agreed not to require parking fees except when there’s a racing event. So those are the kinds of issues that were unclear and not part of the original negotiations between the city and Winston Salem State and the race promoters that we were able to incorporate into the document that I think actually satisfy all parties involved. Does that help Representative Stamp? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that explanation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’ll decline at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I think that everyone in here understands my position on the universities continuing to grow at the expense of their students. Raising fees so we can keep building our palaces. But buying a racetrack is really disturbing. If there’s financial problems with the racetrack and the city wanted to pawn it off, why didn’t they find private individuals to buy it? Because that’s what it appears like to me. The racetrack isn’t making money so the university can take it over and do whatever they want to do with it. And who’s on the hook for making sure it’s maintained? The universities. And who gives the universities money? We do. student’s tuitions or student fees, I’ve mentioned this before, I’ve talked about it over the years: we’ve got to stop driving up student fees so people in universities can keep building buildings. They don’t take care of what they have because they know, sooner or later, we’re going to have to pay for the maintenance on their buildings. They know sooner or later when it gets bad enough and we get enough bad press that we’ll float a bond issue of some sort or we’ll provide money in another manner to take care of things they neglected and they did not do. We’ve got to stop going down this road every year. We’ve got to stop supporting something that’s illogical and not good, not good for the students that attend our universities. I’m a no vote, I have been in the past, I will be in the future, and I hope you also will be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Conrad, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I did want to explain a little bit more about the facility that Winston Salem State University wants to acquire. It is used for stunt car racing, but it’s also a football stadium. Over the past many years, they have been renting this facility from the city of Winston Salem to have their football games. And it also islocated in very close proximity to the Winston state, Salem state university, so I did want to explain that it’s not just a racetrack. But the history of sock car racing goes back for decades there and one of my main concerns was to make sure that every single provision was looked at to insure for the future of sock car racing. For example, if any modifications-

...made to the stadium or to the field itself that it could in no way impair the continued function of stock car racing, so I did want to explain that it's also a football stadium. I do understand the concerns of representative Cleveland and representative Jordan and I do think going forward that we do need to carefully look at the expansion of the university physical facilities, particularly since we do not have the funds to keep up with renovations, but I do support this current bill and I do appreciate the interim that we had from the removal and the finance committee because there were some unresolved concerns that ?? on speedway that were uncovered and we're happy to have this opportunity to correct the situation before we included it back in the bill and I urge you to vote for it, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Conrad a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Conrad, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I certainly do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Conrad, you mentioned that they had been leasing this from the city of Winston-Salem, how much did they pay on this lease? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe it was approximately for each game about 3,500 dollars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So certainly less than the seven and plus million dollars to purchase. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was in the finance committee and I understood that they weren't paying anything to the city of Winston-Salem for the lease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it's sort of a convoluted system, it's not exactly a check cut from the university system to the city of Winston-Salem. I believe the funds and perhaps representative Lambeth can help me, were taken from the parking, concessions, from money made during the game that covered the cost of the rental and that's why there wasn't a sort of a paper trail as such that former representative Fallwell could find from the university system to the city of Winston-Salem, at least, that is what I've been told. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I was just concerned about the payment, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? to activate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Speaker. Colleagues, ladies and gentleman, observe. Chamber and Gallery, this bill is a UNC Capital Improvement Projects bill. This is very important to the entire UNC system, that we move this so that they can take care of the needs that these universities have on their campuses, we've hired and put chancellors and facilities managers and highly skilled people in place in these universities to make these types of determinations and we have several schools that have done that. The Winston-Salem state university has come up and I wanted to speak just briefly on that. It has been described as a football stadium and as a race track, but as I said in the finance committee and as I said to some of you all individually, what this facility and the land around this facility that is associated with this bill called Civitan Park, what it is more than anything else is a learning laboratory for the university. They have a NASCAR motorsports management program that is the only one of its kind in the country. They utilize this facility and they're fortunate and blessed to have this facility contiguous to the campus that their students can get to on a daily basis and utilize as the NASCAR motorsports program as it continues to grow and expand. The University of North Caroline and Charlotte has an engineering motorsports program that is growing by leaps and bounds every single year and it's a jobs producing program that has students leaving that program and making up to six figures a year. Those are the types of programs and academics that we want to see in our universities. Winston-Salem State University, a university that has come so far and through so much over the years has been able to link in and tap in to a rich motorsports history, not only in the state but in the city through the Bowman Gray racing program. As representative Lambeth and representative Conrad stated, the Forsyth county delegation has worked tirelessly with the racing promoters and with the interested parties to insure that that history is preserved and also to ensure that the future of this fine academic program at this school is preserved.

The Bowman-Gray Stadium happens to be a tremendous part of that future and I would urge your support of this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Hanes yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, indeed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative. I waited till you had finished with your comments because they're very important on this issue. I have a couple of questions. The first I'd like to ask is how many students are involved in this program? It sounds like a good program. How many students are currently involved? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The program has 11 students involved. It's a newer program. Eleven students. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Follow up question, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes, you mentioned Civitan Park. How large is that and what is the former use of that property before it was a park? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Civitan Park is approximately 92 acres. As I understand it. And it was formerly a landfill that over the years had been redeveloped, re-purposed, and is now, an environmental study, the university has been through an environmental study one and two, to ensure the safety of Civitan Park being used as an athletics field where you will not be building dormitories and the like. So it's used as an athletic, the practice field. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Earle, please state your purpose. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes, does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hanes, as you may recall in Finance Committee, I spoke in support of the Jordan amendment to remove this project from Winston-Salem State and I certainly applaud the efforts that you all in the delegation have made to address what I think were some real problems, at least how initially it was done. But I would ask this question. What assurances do you feel that we can have as the trustees of the State that there's not going to be any future liability given the fact that there is apparently some contamination on this property, both in terms of its past use and I guess potentially with ongoing use, that there wouldn't be liability that the State is going to have to pick up above and beyond what is envisioned through the fees, through the university? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I think the way I would answer that question is that the university has experts and professionals, and has worked with experts and professionals, to go through the proper procedures to ensure that the field is safe for its use and that is as athletic support fields. Furthermore, I don't think there's any question that there are insurance mechanisms out there in place. That I'm certain that the university is aware of, that they've investigated, and that they can take advantage of if it proves to be necessary for them to do that. What I think is the most important piece, however, Representative Moore, is that we should not do anything in this body to prevent any university from moving forward with a space or facility that clearly is a use to the school, is there close to the school, and is being used for academic purposes to promote the expansion and improvement of their academic programs. I think that's really what the focus ought to be. The university has gotten the approvals that they need from a safety standpoint and I think we ought to trust the professionals at the university, as we are doing with the University of North Carolina and Appalachian State and some of the other universities. I think we ought to trust the professionals at Winston-Salem State University that they've done their due diligence and I think they absolutely have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I briefly speak on the conference report? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members. I'm really agonizing over what to do on this vote. And I'll just share with the members why. I was before ever being in the General Assembly, I was a member of the Board of Governors at UNC and had an opportunity for us to review projects like this. And I do want to say that I do think there are significant improvements in what the Forsythe delegation has done in coming up with this. I know, for example, Representative Hanes, Representative Conrad, Representative Lambeth have worked with the city council, worked with some of the folks at the race track to try to address some concerns. The...

The practical problem here is – and I'll be honest with the members, I'm leaning at voting No on the conference report – the practical problem is, if the conference report is going to go down, I'm not sure if it goes down today, if that's going to kill the whole thing because of the number of days on the Bill that these things require. So that's the problem, that there are a lot of projects that have unanimous support, but there's this one project that at least has some concerns. So I don't know which button I'll press in a minute, but I just wanted to express I do have some concerns about this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just as a point of clarification, if you purchase property that's contaminated without a North Carolina brownfields agreement, you are liable for any remediation. So that is something to be concerned about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. SPEAKER CHANGES] I recognize Representative Moore's agony, this is not a clear right or wrong, this one's real close. The racetrack did cause me concerns. The thing that leans me more towards it, yes, realistically, is the brownfields. Winston-Salem State is landlocked. If they're going to expand, what that means is, they're going to buy neighborhoods nearby and bulldoze the houses. That's going to be considerably more expensive. Brownfields have been used by Mecklinburg County Parks for athletic fields for quite a long time. It is a tough call, it is a close call, but at some point we have to allow people to make some choices. 7 million for 92 acres of brownfield is expensive. But if we go after 92 acres of homes, relocating people, buying the houses, condemnation, that's going to be so much worse. They're in a tough situation, they're trying to make a tough decision. It's not bad enough for me to put the entire bill in danger, to block this one. If the local delegation wants it, ?? by preponderance, I'm inclined to vote for it. It's not a great, tearing thing and I think people can vote against this with clear conscience. But it's that they've got a bad situation, they're trying to come up with the best answer they can, I'm intended, I'm kind of inclined to let them go with what they've got. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElratt, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. The motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will be hearing our Environmental Amends Bill, and on page 31 of House Bill 74, there is a section in there that says that no public entity will be able to purchase a property with known contamination unless it is approved by the Governor and Council (Counsel?) of State. So this will have a little bit of a protection for them there. It also says that no state General Fund money can be used to clean up that brownfield. So there is protection, if you vote for House Bill 74, coming up soon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr Speaker. We just wanted to speak in support of the conference – [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. You know, we do a lot of things here that require us to, I think, address the diversity of many of our campuses. The problems, the issues that they have, differ. We've over the last couple of days made some decisions to help other universities, other campuses throughout North Carolina. This one deserves that consideration as well. I certainly hope that you would look at that. You know we have to help people where they need the help. This is a good bill and I hope that you would support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It seems like to me we have, as I hear it, some heartburn over Bowman Gray Stadium, which is one of the iconic facilities in a sport that grew up in this state, which is stock car racing. The one thing I would ask the Body to consider is, we vote on a lot of bills that have a lot of stuff in them. Heck, we voted on a budget bill yesterday, we'll vote it again today. I think every, all hundred and twenty members, can agree there's something in that budget bill that we don't like 100 percent. This bill is no different. There's one thing in this bill that I think causes some heartburn. But it's worthwhile, and it's something we need to get done, and I would respectfully ask that you all vote in favor of the bill, and not against it just because of the Bowman Gray issue. The value of the bill outweighs any concern [RECORDING ENDS]

?? that one issue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Terry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I had planned not to say anything about this. I am-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I debate the motion. And I simply want to say this. That I've heard the debate and I understand the tenets of all the concerns. And I recognize why they have been raised. But I simply want to stand here and say to you today that the Winston-Salem State University partnership arrangement with Bowman Gray motorsports racing and the city of Winston-Salem represents a tremendous opportunity for a win-win situation for us in the Triad Region. And the reality about that is that it will become, it already has proven itself, to have the potential as an economic engine, as well as an incubator for academic success and achievement. In something which the state of North Carolina has touted itself about with pride, and that's motorsports racing. We aren't there yet. Someone asked the question regarding how many students are enrolled. There are 11 students enrolled. But how does anything begin? It begins small, and it has the potential to grow large, if in fact you invest in people who have the vision to move forward. North Carolina needs this kind of vision, particularly to rebound with the economy that we have that continues to sag. I would ask this body to please search your souls and determine whether or not you are willing to invest in an opportunity for the Triad Region to be able to bloom and blossom and help restart the economy that is so wanting in the state of North Carolina. I urge you to support this measure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lambeth, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time--the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are two pieces I'd like to add to this debate and discussion. One is that this property has been on the master plan for the Winston State campus for some time. It has been approved and vetted by the UNC Board of Governors. The second piece of it is that the city of Winston-Salem has agreed, in the agreements to sell the property, that they will protect Winston-Salem State and the state with the brownfields. So there will be no liability. It will be shifted over to the state. That's an unknown liability because the city of Winston-Salem, through their agreements with Winston-Salem State and the sale would take on that responsibility. And that is part of this transaction as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the motion to adopt the conference report for Senate Bill 480. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 91 having voted in the affirmative, 25 in the negative, the House has adopted the conference report for Senate Bill 480. The bill remains on the calendar. House Bill 321. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate and Speaker of the House of Representatives, a conferee is appointed to resolve the difference between Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 321, a bill to be entitled an act to repeal the requirement that local governments develop and maintain a solid waste management plan. It exempts certain landfills from the requirement that they obtain a franchise to operate from a local government in limited circumstances. The conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Jackson, Chair; Senators Tucker, Wade, and Brown. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Representative McGrady, Chair; Representatives Foushee, Arp, and Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, before some of the members finish their meals, without objection, Rule 12D is suspended. So ordered. Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion and then to speak on that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak the motion is to concur with the conference report with respect to House Bill 321. This is a bill, colleagues, that eliminates a requirement that counties develop a ten-year comprehensive solid waste management plan. It's

?? regulatory reform issues sought by the North Carolina Association of Counties. It has received unanimous support I believe at every level over here. And I'm glad to report that the Senate completely acceded to the House position on the Bill. And we passed it 110 to one. And even the one that voted against it is for this conference report now. So if I can lose this one I can't lose anything in the world. Please vote to support the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon of the Chair understands the gentleman wishes to be recorded as having recorded aye on Senate Bill 480. So ordered. Further discussion, further debate on the motion. If not the question before the House is the motion to adopt the conference report for House Bill 321 all in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 116 have voted in the affirmative, and one in the negative. The House has adopted the conference report for House Bill 321. The Senate will be so notified. Senate Bill 317 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Section for Senate Bill 317 a bill to be entitled An Act To Reduce The Size Of The Gillford County Board Of Education 11 to Nine Members And Establish Revised Districts For The Gillford County Board Of Education. Subject to referendum provide for parts and elections for that board. And to district the Stanley County Board of Commissioners and Stanley County Board of Education. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. There's a technical amendment pending on this bill and so I'd like to ask it be temporarily displaced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be temporarily displaced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 523 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 523 a bill to be entitled, An Act To Clarify And Amend The Penalties For Taxpayers Failure To File A Return. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm running this bill for Senator Rucho. This addresses failure to file penalties and not failure to pay. Because of the way laws relate to taxes it addresses both income tax and sales tax. It is primarily to solve a problem with sales tax. This is where someone does not file a return and then later files a return late. If a small taxpayer files a return late and is due a refund they will not be penalized. But people who owe taxes on individual returns will be penalized a fee of $100. This deviates from what the Federal Government does and does cause a concern for the accounting profession. For corporations the failure to file penalties are actually in keeping with what the Federal Government is on failure to pay. Five percent of the amount of the tax for each month up to a maximum of $25. This is done less to get at businesses that are failing to file their returns after having paid their taxes, but to address an issue with sales tax receipts. Companies are collecting sales tax, are sending it to the Department of Revenue, but are not filing the paperwork with it, so the state cannot allocate the state revenue and the local portions to cities and counties and it's in limbo. The intent here is to encourage people to go ahead and file the paperwork along with paying the tax so the money can be allocated and I'd ask your support for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question for Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley we worked on this in finance yesterday and I'm just wondering if there's still a technical problem that I just noticed. Would look at line 17? And I understand the purpose of the bill. Individual income taxes paid by a partnership or an S-corporation. I thought partnerships and S-corporations were flow throughs and I didn't know that they paid any individual income taxes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank you for the question. That would be the income taxes paid on income from a sub-S or a partnership return. Because that would have been filed that information would be.

available that would also tend to be very large taxpayers. These are the instances where businesses are taxed as individuals so this is not a typical W2 income where you’ve had income withheld but rather this is where you are a manufacturing company, say a large real estate firm and you’re a partnership in LLC or Sub S corporation and have chosen to be taxed as an individual rather than a corporation so this is going to be a business entity not somebody working for wages. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A follow up question [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Gentleman yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Representative Brawley I see in subsection A there’s the exclusion for income tax paid by S corporation but again the partnership or the S corporation doesn’t pay the tax and so what about an individual who mostly gets wages but maybe gets a little bit from a LLC or a S corporation do they fall under A or B? I don’t know the answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I don’t know that I know the answer either, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam we will with the approval of Representative Brawley we will temporary displace this and get staff to answer that question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be displaced. Senate Bill 470 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute For Senate Bill 470 ?? To be to prohibit the consumption of malt beverages or unfortified wine on premises of any businesses during the period of time where any on premise permit issued to the business authorizing the sale and consumption of any malt beverages or unfortified wine is suspended or revoked by the Alcohol Beverage Control Commission General Assembly of North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House we had a good discussion on this yesterday I’ll be glad to answer any questions I think we had a unanimous vote on the 2nd and I appreciate on the 3rd Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the passage of the Senate Committee substitute the Senate Bill 470 on its 3rd reading. All in favor vote AYE all opposed vote NO the clerk will open the vote. The clerk ?? Machine Will record the vote 118 have voted in the affirmative, 1 in the negative the Senate Committee substitute for Senate Bill 470 has passed it’s 3rd reading. The bill will be returned to the Senate. Senate Bill 368 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 558 a bill to be entitled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 368[SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute # 2 for Senate Bill 368 a bill ?? to provide for $10 copay for prescription medication dispensed in the county jail to raise the pistol permit fee collected by sheriffs and to provide the pistol permit fee to be an application fee General Assembly North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker move that this bill be referred to the committee on rules there is apparently a couple of problems that were found that are gonna require changes to the title and so forth the cleanest way will be for us to fix it in that rules committee and move it to good rules[SPEAKER CHANGES] without objection so ordered Representative Hardister has the technical amendment for 317 been prepared yet? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No Mr Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 726 the clerk will read the top of the calendar first page [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for house bill 726 a bill?? to Act authorizing the ??? County to assume responsibility for construction improvement ownership and acquisition of public school property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] make a motion and to concur and to [SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion.

as for speaker of personalization-worried into your age of innocence and 1/2 billion dollars below the exact of Thailand is improper procedure , investment was a statement motion, is leaving a ??view of a charity are others for saving Medicare cipher with ones that first night of the holiday cards and ceo has a lot, john Leo Fourtou arsenide see as a witness of holiness over aviation parts of the state for you at the genocidal resident of a residence entered as-time mission-date is a great person, or 16 of the middle of the prevails in the night of October withers and five in the building of lights and rested on trial issue with his comment was an audit for detail of this bill White's to play in a small destruction there are tiny towns in the heart of the state's water a day after a light entrees from all three offer the rate is one of these white cap tile his proposal is currently in lake county parties that was the nation's Cold War however it is not as hard rhyme of years that the county commissioners of a partisan basis for the statement I made a sensation at the singers with just one of our cities and is one instance ID(SPEAKER CHANGES) and a 411-8 cents at one time that it might be an outdated by county has billions of dollars of the video in less than a few additional all-out of a dollar appliances wall tile floor of his rough that, as the supposedly more than held at the half as the comments that the money will be spent wisely and only nine of these of the White House county light at the error or fall times and the estimate was fired as well. You have your halftime as the current situation in which all with counties of the school of it easy on after general obligation of-town the diamond said the deal was last night was the right project was for tile of sales tax law counties get all these lines as a sales tax time attendance this: how has the premiere of the law rear of the great race to interact with the sound Riley(SPEAKER CHANGES) as media studies are making some as two of his be all right to 19 pm up in the center-up on all of the end of last only a upbeat comments on a tiny a mother of a position of slightly lighter and all lies back of this would be operated, he added these are the only time will as your supporters will be one purpose of the time dollars represented a Morass of Haiti-Stephen-down when a state-of-the-street and the rate is below is a couple of times of – end of this bill was recently in the home at the plate, went on the site of some formula below Palmdale-set an interview buyers and was active as the concatenation and higher bond deals end to end this hasn't not enough about the own , he's been an idiot was-designed to see some sort of the office manager to flock of the sale is the result of the open, and the information you have a design firm, and is or where of these of state about the sun, he had not -too, think about what is the old Ashley Dunn is time-satirizes are some of the Oregon City of you today that business at the same time as insights ??????????.....

And you got to remember that Wake County school system 10% of all students in North Carolina that are in the public schools are in Wake County. 10% of every school child is in Wake County. So the implications of that can be broad if you're worried about that. Now if you are more supportive of this type policy, if you vote to concur, you can not get your county added. It is just solely for Wake County. If this type program is truly is going to be a model that we might look at in the future, we have a massive urban system that we're looking at trying it. Why don't we put a small rule system to see if it would work for them too? By voting to concur for this you can not do that because it will not go to conference. We can not have our hand in this at all as a House. So I want you to think about those factors when you place this vote. And I would urge you to not concur so we can truly look at this issue like it needs to be looked at, possibly do an experimental model. If you have vested interest from another county to where you might have that option in the future. But if you vote to concur, you will not get that. So I urge that you vote no on Representative Stam's motion. Speaker Changes: Mr. Speaker? Speaker Changes: For what purpose do the gentleman from Catawba, Representative Setzer rise? Speaker Changes: As a chair on the Finance Committee, do we have a fiscal note on this bill? If we don't, I'd like to request one. Speaker Changes: House biddees we need to determine if one is going to be necessary. [pause] Members, it's the opinion of the Chair that there was, seems clear to the Chair there's no impact on the state budget, therefore, a fiscal note would not be required. For what purpose the gentleman from Wake, Representative Malone rise? Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr., Mr. Speaker. Speaker Changes: Does the gentleman wish to debate the bill? Speaker Changes: I do want to debate the bill. Speaker Changes: The gentleman is recognized. Speaker Changes: Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to speak to you from a position of being in the facility's chair at the Wake County school system. I know how everything works over there so I'm going to give you a quick little run down on things. There are three basic overviews of why you should vote for this. First is structural. Second is fiscal and third is political. Under structural, we all know the counties have a taxing authority. They're the ones that put the bonds on the referendum, agree to how much the bond is going to be, and then schedule it out. Number 3, Wake County, because we are talking about Wake County and only Wake County. They have a great real estate department, unlike some of the things I've heard from some school board members. They're not going to build and outhouse for somebody. It's going to be a great facility. I've seen great facilities all across the state, built for a whole lot less. And we can certainly do that here, which by the way we don't really want to or at least, they don't want to. Now, they also hold all the liabilities. Speaker Stem spoke to this. They should have the assets. It would only make sense. We don't give the school board, the school system's taxing authority and we know why we don't want to do that. And that's why the counties should have the assets. Number 2, fiscal. Going back to being on the school board and being on the facility's Chair. I've seen schools built for a lot more than they need to be built. I worked to lower the price, often times working with Democrats to find a way to get the prices lower. We went from building a $75 million dollar school to building a $62 million dollar school. Some of the things that I did and others did was to bring people in to discuss various different architectural techniques that we could utilize to do that. Things were environmental, like Geo Thermals, Lead Friendly schools, and whatnot. Oftentimes when doing this, I'd find that my efforts were being blown up or whatever, but...

-staff and that kind of resistance does not bode well for the taxpayer. We got a bond coming up, 800 million dollar bond. If they want that to pass, they need the people of Wake County to be supportive of it. And they won’t be unless they see some kind of action on us and this is one way to bring back trust in the county. That’s the fiscal. Number three, the political: it’s been used for all kinds of various different reasons, where we put schools and things like that. I’m not going to get into it, but I don’t want to see the day when we’re going back to hour and a half long bus rides, sending the kids from one school to another, while certain areas of the county are protected, insulated, and resource friendly and others are not. The other side talks about these kinds of things, they talk about equity and resource friendly activity. And I don’t see a lot of that often times on the school system, in the school board. So for all those three reasons, I’m asking you to vote for this. It’s a good thing, it’s the appropriate thing, and I commend the bill and ask for you to vote for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Holley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a heavy heart, because this is the bill that, when it came up in committee all of the sudden you know uh it, it appeared it’d been hijacked and it appeared with Wake County and a number of counties on it, it was a statewide bill. Wake County was voted off in committee, the bill was dead. But somehow I’m learning here, the General Assembly, that nothing’s dead because you can bring it to life on a whim, if you want to bring it to life. The process hasn’t been fair and when we look in to the, into it, Wake County public schools has built more schools, has been the most rapidly growing school system in the county, no in the state. They built more schools, they know how to build more schools. I’ve heard things about businessmen on the board. What businessmen do you know has built a school? Wake County has staffing in place. The school board has staffing in place that does this and this is what they do. This belongs to the school board. Remember, as he said, 10% is Wake County. It is very easy to add another county. It’s very easy for it to change. So those of you who think, well this is only Wake County now it doesn’t affect me, it affects us all As Wake County goes, so does the rest of the state go. Maybe not this week, but believe me, it will go this way. I vote against this bill and I ask you not to support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Gill rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. You know, I’m going to speak as someone who spent a little over ten years on the Wake County school board. First as someone who stayed on the school board maybe a year or someone who’s never served on the school board. The first thing I want to talk about is the bond rating. Certainly, Wake County has a AAA bond rating. You know when this issue first came up and I was on the board, the first thing we did as board members, we call in all 3 of the bonding agencies and we asked them, if we continue the practice that we currently are doing, will this affect the AAA rating and they said no, not in one, not one bit. Then we decided that maybe we ought to look at it, because I hear about having revenues and assets and liabilities on the same books. So we called in the local government commissioner to talk to us about whether our process was correct and if they had a problem with it and we have documentation in the school building that told us there was nothing wrong with the process and they approved it. So let’s get all of that straight, we went through that to begin with. So I wanted to make sure that you all understand, the school board is not just a group of individuals who do think-

[Speaker Change] Haphazardly. We do have a conscious. We do understand. And we think about how this is going to impact, not only the students, but the individuals who voted for us as school board members. Now let me talk more about the siting and the construction of a building. You know the school must maintain the educational process for our children. Providing a high quality education for our children is the school boards primary responsibility. School buildings are about education. There is a direct link between student achievement or behavior and the physical building condition. You know student spend more than sixteen thousand hours in a building over their career. Teachers and principals spend even more time in the buildings. They deserve the necessary space that will encourage growth, creativity, and intellect. The school building is essential to the education process. You know, during the time that our state decided to provide a free education it's children, the general assembly had the foresight at that time, to give the school board the authority to build schools and the county commissioner the authority to tax. Many of them understood that the owner of the property needs the latitude to carry out it's responsibilities. They knew that if, if they gave the responsibility to the commissioners, they would want to have a say so in the educational process. They would want, you know as a owner of property. You know this. You would want to know something about the size and the type of building that is going to be built on your property. Right? Well do you know how that would interfere with the educational process? The school system is responsible for the design of the program, the curriculum, and what the building looks like. So can you imagine the school system, or the school board trying to tell the county commissioners about the program, the curriculum, and the design? And they understand that fully? No they would being looking at how can we cheaply do this and maybe it does not deserve the scrutiny the school board is giving it. The next question you would ask is, where will the building be located? You know, that's a student assignment problem. And it deals with student capacity. You know, sometime, and I heard one of the former board members of Wake County say, you know, we build schools where, out in remote locations... [Speaker Change] Excuse me Speaker? [Speaker Change] We build schools at all these other places. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker? I can't hear this Bill... [Speaker Change] Does the lady, the lady from Chathum Representative McManus, is the lady asking for a decorum? The Chair was about to do that. [Speaker Change] Yes sir. [Speaker Change] Would ask members, I know that there's a lot of folks who may not be particularly interested in this Bill but would ask those members to please take conversations outside and give the Speaker the respect she deserves? Thank you. The lady from Wake continues to have the floor. [Speaker Change] Thank you. And when you, and when you talk about attendance and who will occupy the building, again, that deals with student assignment and student capacity. Managing the construction of school gives the board of education the best opportunity to respond to our school system and to provide a high quality educational environment for our students. They're closest to the classroom and in the best, the best position to understand the complex requirements. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does the gentlemen from Wake, Representative Malone rise? [Speaker Change] To ask a question. [Speaker Change] Does the lady from, does the lady from Wake yield for a question from the gentlemen from Wake? [Speaker Change] No I will not yield. [Speaker Change] She does not yield. [Speaker Change] Until I finish my... [Speaker Change] The lady from Wake continues to have the floor to debate the motion. [Speaker Change] The school board is closest to the classroom and are in the best position to understand the complex requirements for a successful school system. The school board is accountable to the parents and voters. You know, the sponsor of this Bill claim his motivation is it doesn't pay tax. The sponsors Bill claim that the county commissioners have business experts. You know, there's no constitutional requirement that a person who runs for school board or county commissioner have business...

Experience. You know, most of our school policy designs our guidelines for construction to ensure an effective learning environment. I doubt that the county commissioners have highly qualified or, or I doubt any of our county commissioners are highly qualified and are expert professionals who know the nuts and bolts of building schools, and of construction. There are many important issues facing our school and community. We have and we will continue to work together to create the best school system in the nation. If you truly believe that this is not in the best interest, if you truly believe that this is in the best interest of our school and community, then why did this bill change from a state-wide bill just to include Wake County? For those counties that were in the bill, and those who want to be in the bill, remember the old saying, as Wake County goes, so does the other 130, 113 LAs. All it takes is for the General Assembly to remove section 14 and 15, and it becomes a state-wide bill. You can stop this from happening today. This is just pure politics, a blatant power grab by the Wake County Republican legislative delegation and county commissioners, and it’s a bad policy. Please vote with me. Vote red, not to concur. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The conference report, thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me, the motion to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion to concur, thank you. I would appreciate your concurrence in this Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 726. This is a local bill. It was Wake County. It’s just Wake County, it’s not a pilot, it’s not trying to be a pilot or not trying to be a pilot, it’s Wake County. This is something that we’ve talked about for years. We have an extremely capable construction acquisition and land acquisition and the like. Departments within Wake County government, this will save us save us money at the local level. The school board can focus on education issues in the classroom, which is what they need to be focused on. And the county which funds the construction can focus on the construction, and focus on the physical plan which is a much more logical division of labor anyway. This will work very well for us, the county is the one with the AAA bond rating anyway. School board doesn’t have that. They can’t have that. It’s a local bill. Now I would say one thing to my friend, Representative Elmore. I think he was a little bit concerned about his name being on the bill. But he may not be aware, or others may not be aware, you can remove your name from a bill as the proud sponsor at any time. All you have to do is do that in writing. This is not necessarily unusual. I had it actually happen to me several years ago. I sent a bill over, I can’t even remember what it was. And it came back as like a supplemental appropriations bill. So it was a Democrat appropriations bill, right? So I was puzzling with myself, you know, could I take my name off? Leave it on? But since it did pass, and got enacted into law, I thought I’d just take credit for it, let it go. It worked out fine. No repercussions from it. No consequences from that. So I’d just simply say, you’ve heard the different arguments but this is a local bill. We want it here in Wake County, and would very much appreciate your support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake County, Representative Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Wake has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. We learn something new every day. I sympathize with the gentleman from Wilkes. The Senate did this to a lot of my bills well beyond my freshman years and I still have nightmares of having to campaign where a bill with my name on it that I had no idea what was in it would be used against me. So I tell you, if you ever

On statewide and you come to Wake County, I’ll write you a note saying you had nothing to do with this bill. I’ve heard from two of my former school board members with different opinions on this and I’ve heard some good points from both sides of the issue. I never served on the school board. I barely made it out of the public school system so I’m not qualified to talk too much to talk about that at all. But I do go to both of them for advice on these issues. I do know though a little bit about politics. And I also know a little bit about being a parent and in the end what we have here is two children, our county commission and our school board. I only have one child myself but I had a sister growing up and we fought like cats and dogs. There were times when we had been at it for years and years and years, and just were not going to resolve the issue, and it was time for my parents to step in and separate my sister and I. But there were other times where my parents very wisely saw that my sister and I needed to work together to continue to try to resolve the disputes, that that was part of being an adult and what we learned to do. I submit to you ladies and gentleman that right now that’s the situation in Wake County. There are folks behaving like children from both parties on our county commission, there are folks behaving like children from both parties on our school board. But they’re good people on both sides. They’re very smart people and they’re very well-intentioned people, in both bodies and from both parties. I have confidence in all of them, that they will be able to resolve this, to do the job they were elected by my people in Wake County to do. I’d ask the people of this body to continue to give those folks a little more time to grow up, and vote no on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Avilla arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I will ask you to vote for this motion for one reason and one reason only. If you will notice, it’s to elect by resolution to do this, and that resolution requires a public hearing. And if you don’t think the school board and the county commission in Wake County understand what they’re putting themselves out for when they ask for a public hearing, you have not been reading the paper lately. The citizens of the county will have the opportunity to let these children on both sides know where they stand. And how they would like their money spent, how they would like their schools built where their children are going. Please vote to, in favor of the motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Stanley, Representative Burr rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. First let me say I think there’s been an opportunity to hear from both sides on this. To hear from a majority of the Wake County delegation. At this time I would move to previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The member from Stanley has moved to previous question. The question before the House is the motion and the gentleman from Stanley to the previous question, as to Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 26. So many as favor the motion for the previous question will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Give members a few minutes to get in. Again for those coming in, this is a vote on the previous question. So many as favor the motion will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 63 having voted in the affirmative and 48 in the negative, the previous question is adopted. Pursuant to the local rules, the minority leader and the majority leader are both given three minutes for a statement. The gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall is recognized for that purpose unless the gentleman has someone else he would like to designate or unless he wants to waive. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Rather than waive, I would designate Representative Darren Jackson from Wake County to use the three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson has the floor for the three minutes for the minority party. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Mr. Leader. I appreciate the opportunity since other members didn’t feel that was necessary. Process in this bill sucks. We stood here a couple weeks ago, I think maybe last Thursday, we were going to vote this bill down, and Representative Moore stood there and said let’s not do this to the senior appropriations chair from the Senate. Let’s just show him the courtesy. Let’s just send it back to Rules. And guess what. Here it is again.

There's only one board in Wake county that has the experience in building schools and that's the School Board. You're going to give ten percent, a billion dollars, and you're going to give it over to an entity that has no experience building schools. But they do have experience building court houses, and I'm in that courthouse. And if you haven't had the chance I'd encourage you to go down to that courthouse. Republican judge called it a few weeks ago, he called it the Taj Mahal of courthouses. It's got marble engraved in it. It's got wooden paneled courtrooms like we're all familiar from the Federal courthouse. It's got fifty flat screen TV's in it. Anyone want to guess how many flat screen TV's my son's school has? Anybody? ?? If this is a bad idea to give a billion dollars, to give ten percent over to the Wake County County Commissioners that have no experience, if you want to try this, try it on a small scale but you shouldn't get involved in this local matter. I'd ask you to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, does the gentleman from Caswell wish to offer a three minute statement? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for that purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the chamber. You've heard the debate, you understand the issue, and I will be voting with my colleagues from Wake County. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House. That was the most non-committal statement I've ever heard Edgar Starnes make.The question before the House is the motion to concur to the Senate Committee substitute for House bill 726. ?? favor the motion will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Fifty four having voted in the affirmative, and sixty two in the negative, the motion fails. Are the parties ready to proceed on Senate bill 523? Who is handling that bill? Ask the House to come to ?? We're going to move to - for what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank yo, Mr. Speaker. With further consideration I have decided that my objection to 321 was not sufficient throughout the whole bill so I'd like to change my vote to yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted yes on House bill 321. I believe the parties are ready on Senate bill 317 is that correct, Representative Hardister? Senate Bill 317, the Clerk will read. I believe the bill has been read. Does the gentleman from Guilford wish to send forward an amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman from Guilford is recognized to send forward an amendment, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister moves to ?? the bill on page four line one by deleting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Guilford, Representative Hardister is recognized to debate the amendment. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment is purely technical. If you look at your dashboard it corrects a typo on page four, line one and on page four line twenty five it moves the effective date for the filing period to before the primary elections in 2014 and thus related to the provisions regarding Stanley County. It's purely technical, staff caught these mistakes and I would appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion for the debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is amendment one offered by Representative Hardister to the House Committee substitute for Senate bill 317. So many as favor the adoption of the amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred sixteen having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the amendment is adopted. We now back on the bill as amended, does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Hardister wish to debate the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This is a Senate bill that came over to the House some time ago. The House

committee substitute before ?? substantially different from the Senate bill that first came over. As you'll see, this relates to redistricting the Guilford County board of education. Also, it deals with election changes in Stanley County, and, for that, I would recommend Representative Justin Burr to yield for questions, but I will speak to the provisions related to Guilford county. You may recall that, two years ago, we redistricted the Guilford County board of commissioners, and, prior to that, the districts of the Guilford County board of commissioners and the districts for the Guilford County board of education matched each other. They were aligned, there were eleven members, and each body with nine districts and two at large, and it made government more efficient for the two bodies to match. It made it easier for the representatives on the board of commissioners and the representatives on the board of education to communicate with each other. It also made it easier for the citizens to communicate with their elected officials at the county level, and so the original version of this bill kept the board of education of Guilford County at eleven, and there were redistricting changes. However, what we did here in the House is we simply aligned the board of education districts with the board of commissioner districts, and there are some very slight changes in the district maps in order to keep certain members from being double-bunked, and so that is one change that you'll see in the PCS. The second is that the Senate version would reduce the board of education terms from four years to two years. We would keep them at four years and stagger them to match the commissioner districts. The third provision is related to partisan elections. The Senate version would have converted the board of education directly to partisan; this would put it to referendum, and I'd appreciate your support and be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Harrison, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House. Representative Faircloth and Hardister deserve a lot of credit for making a very bad Senate bill much less bad, but it's still bad. I don't want to repeat all the arguments that were made when we discussed the conversion of the Wake County school board and Lee County school board about the unnecessarily meddling of this body and to matters best left to local government, because Representative Hardister mentioned two years ago we redistricted the Guilford County commission board for partisan advantage. We are in a very blue county, and now it's a GOP controlled county commissioner, so now we're going to redistrict our school board so that it will probably similarly be composed in that partisan fashion, and I have heard only from citizens who are opposed to this. The school board is opposed to it, just as they were in the Wake and Lee County debates. I think the meddling in these local affairs that are best left to local governments, particularly for partisan advantage, is shameful, and beneath the dignity of this chamber, and I urge you to vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Adams, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'd like to ask the gentleman some questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Which member are you asking to yield- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister, does the gentleman yield to the lady from Guilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, representative. Let me ask you, and I know you've done some work on this bill, and we had some discussion about conversations that were supposed to have occurred with the school board. First of all, who asked for the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are citizens of Guilford County who have asked for this, who have asked for the school board to be lined up again to match the board of commissioners. It's something I think we need to do. I believe it would make government more efficient for those two bodies to match. As I've said before, I think it would make it easier for citizens to communicate with their elected officials that way. If you're a citizen in Guilford County, the person who represents you on the school board and the person who represents you in the board of education cover the same area, so I think it's easier for communications, but, again to your question, there are citizens who have brought this to my attention, and I think it's the right thing to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have you had discussions with the school board about the requests that citizens made to you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma'am.

The Guilford County School Board stands opposed to this bill, however It’s important to know that the school board as you know, Representative you were on the elections committee and you may recall that a representative from the school board was there and said they maintained their opposition to this bill, however they much preferred the House version. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You said I was the one where? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the elections committee, the House elections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh okay, I’m sorry I didn’t understand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to ask one final question if the gentleman yields. He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, you said that making these adjustments makes the process more efficient. How exactly will it make it more efficient? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma’am. Again, if the boards match each other, the districts and again this would reduce the board of education from 11 members to 9, with 1 at large, in 8 districts. And they would be aligned to match the commissioner districts. Say you’re a County Commissioner. And say you represent District 7 for example. There would be a corresponding District 7 on the board of education that covers the same area. That way the same constituents and the same schools are in the same area, the area that you represent as a Count Commissioner. And then the corresponding member of the board of education would cover the same area. So I think it would make it easier for the elected officials to communicate, and it would make it easier for the citizens to communicate with their elected officials. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady from Guilford has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I had the privilege of serving on the school board. The Guilford County School Board was then the Greensville City School Board. I served on the Greensville City Council. I’m serving here in this body. Never have my districts matched to that degree and citizens have not had a problem with it. I just really don’t think that that’s an issue that we need to be concerned about. I mean if you look at your voter registration card, you’re in one district for school board, one district for county commissioners, one district for the legislature, etc. Citizens don’t understand that anyway. They simply want to know who represents them and when they have concerns about the particular issues, they contact those members. Just as they have contacted me about this bill, I have had no one to call in support of it, and I think it’s very disrespectful for us in this body to be meddling in Guilford County business again, trying to change the school board elections. And then to make them partisan. All you have to do is be in this body to know the kinds of problems and issues that can come up when we get too partisan about things. And we should not be getting partisan as it relates to our children. Our school board is working fine with the numbers of members that they have, and the fact that the school board is non-partisan. It should remain that way. I’ve had a conversation with members of the school board who say that they’ve not had a lot of discussions about this. As a matter of fact, when you look at all these numbers in this bill, it’s hard to really know what these district lines mean. It’s going to be even more difficult for citizens, even on a ballot, to determine what the impact is going to be. Because I expect that the vote’s going to only be do you want to have partisan elections and it’ll be a yes or a no, so they really won’t understand that. But I just really believe that we are stepping in waters that we don’t need to be treading in. Guilford County is working fine. The school board has opposed this bill. And they sent every member of our delegation and other members of this body a letter to that effect as well. It is not a good bill. It is not needed. There’s not a problem in Guilford County as it relates to our school board. The school board was not consulted. They didn’t request it, and we should not pass this bill. It is not a good bill for Guilford. Guilford County does not want it, and I would

Please, I would ask you to please consider that the local citizens of this community -- you know, it's just amazing to me that we have members who come in and say “I've talked to my people, and my people want it.” But your people are not always my people. There are lots of people in Guilford County, thousands of them. And my people don't want this. A lot of folk in Guilford County don't want this bill, and I think it's just unfair when we go in and we talk to a group of people, and they say, “Well let's change the school board,” and then we go about and come down here to file a bill to do that. That is absolutely annoying to me. It is unfair, it is unnecessary, we should not support this bill. Vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Faircloth, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the house, I know it's difficult for you to realize this, given the discussion, but politics is alive in Guilford County. This bill comes over from the Senate,. Those of us on this side of the building decided that we would like to take a closer look at it and talk to folks back home and see if it could be perfected a little bit. As you've heard from Representative Hardister, we chose to do that. We made our Democratic friends from the delegation aware of what our ideas were. Obviously there's disagreement, and that's fine, that's the way the system is supposed to work. We believe that, and we had many requests from Guilford County, from folks who felt like there should be some changes in the way that the school board was structured. And that can be well understood, that if you go and ask the school board -- who's going to be affected by this – they probably wouldn't be in favor of it. And they are not in favor of it. They let us know that. However, they did tell us they favored what we did here in the House. If there has to be another choice, they favored our choice. Now I would point out that one thing that I personally insisted upon, and my colleagues here on this side agreed with me, is that this should be a referendum to decide on the partisan question, so that – because the Senate wanted it to be simply made partisan. I did insist on that, that's a part of this particular bill as it exists now – this amendment – and there is a choice to be made by the citizens in Guilford County and the ones we heard from asked us to come down here and make this change. I'm sure the folks on the other side of the aisle heard the same thing. I would ask you to vote for the bill, we think it's good for Guilford County. We hate that we have to bother you with it, but that's the way the system works. I ask for your approval, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Brandon, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a very interesting dichotomy that we have here, that we are talking about a bill, and everybody's talking about the people. And we did it half right, but we didn't do it completely right – and that's the reason why you should vote no on this bill. Now on one hand, we talk about how important it is that we have a referendum. And we should have a referendum, people should speak about how they do their elections. And I applaud my colleagues on the other side for making a referendum for a part of the bill. But there is not a referendum where the law clearly states, and it clearly instructs us, if you're going to change lines, if you're going to do redistricting, you should at least hear from the people. At least. Nobody's even heard about it. We didn't do a public forum about it, nobody knows. So all this talk about “I talked to the people,” nobody's talked to anybody. Nobody's talked to anybody. The people have not had a chance to decide whether they want a referendum on this particular issue in terms of whether the lines should go from, whether the people should go from nine to 12, what the lines should look like. We have not had one bit of discussion about that with any constituent, not with one citizen, not with one public forum, nothing. That is the fact. And that is not the way that we should ever do business. I have always made a pledge, and said that I would support anything that has a referendum. And I get yelled at on both sides, but as long as the people can vote, then I'm okay with that because the people can make up their minds. But they have brought a bill for here today, although it be better it's still bad because we're still talking to us. We're not the people. Oh, did you talk to the county commissioners, did you talk to the school board members – that's not the people. The people are the people. [RECORDING ENDS]

I get annoyed when I hear all of these talks about who we talk to and who did we talk to, and they’re all just elected officials, and we go behind the room and we make back-room Bills over something that clearly should go before the people. Any time that you’re going to change the elections, the maps, the redistricting, that should go before the people at the least, at the very least through some type of public forum where they would have input. As far as I can tell, all we did was the Republicans in the county went into the backroom and decided, “How can we make this horrible Bill a less horrible Bill?” But not one constituent was consulted and that insults me and that insults this body. So, please vote, “No.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Hardister rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please see if my good friend Representative Brandon would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, does the gentleman yield? He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative, you’re certainly not asserting that I did not communicate with any citizens on this, are you? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am asserting… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am asserting that not in any public official way. That you did not. Just because someone calls you on your telephone, does not make that a reference of going to the people. When you talk to the people you do that in a public forum where people are invited and they know exactly what they’re coming to talk about, and I would assert that that did not happen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative, you do know that we debated this in the House Elections Committee and the public was certainly welcome to attend that meeting? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The unfortunate part of that is that I was not aware of that so I know that my constituents weren’t and so the whole thing is that if you are doing this in Guilford County, there’s no reason for you to have a public hearing in Raleigh. This is the reason why we have these things in Greensboro, so, if Senator Wade, yourself and the rest of the Republican delegation really was serious about having a public discussion all of you had the opportunity to have a public forum in the town where it was held at and make it convenient where people to be able to know what was going on. I would venture to say that 90 percent of the public won’t know about this until tomorrow when the paper prints it and that’s when they’ll figure it out and that’s when you’ll get a different call than you had the other day when somebody called from your district. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair notices that apparently today is Wake County-Guilford County day. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Blust rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, I just want to take a little heat off of my colleague Representative Hardister who’s worked this Bill. But we did, and Representative Faircloth was there. Representative Faircloth, Representative Hardister and I had a meeting with several citizens way back in February about this matter. We thought we had a process going. I don’t want to be critical but there was a Bill filed on the Senate side that we really weren’t aware was coming so this has been somewhat of a reaction to that. We have made changes to that Bill, we think for the better… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose Representative Brandon, does the gentleman from Guilford rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask my good friend from Guilford a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust does the gentleman yield to the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, did you have a public forum about this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me finish answering. I would say that you’ve met with citizens several times in your district that did not amount to a public forum. I yield for follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to ask an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My only additional question is this. Did anybody…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me. The gentleman yields. He yields. The gentleman may now state his question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you know of any public forums? It’s not incumbent upon me. I didn’t write the Bill, or bring it up, or support it. So, my question to you, “Does anybody that supported the Bill, did anybody have a public forum about it?” [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. I think the people who were at the meeting were a little bit predisposed against that because there’s still, 20-something years later, some built-up resentment about how the current setup was foisted upon Guilford County without input back then and we’re still reacting to this 11-member school district that without public input then was arranged along with a merger of three different school districts. So those wounds do take a long time to heal. But regardless of that, who did what to who, when, this is simply bringing the current school board in line with the commissioners. It preserves the four-year terms and leaves the question of whether they should be partisan to the public…

We think it's a reasonable reaction to the bill filed by the senate and we ask our college to support this bill. [speaker changes] next question [speaker changes] does the gentlemen yield [speaker changes] I yield [speaker changes] I want to know if you personally think it's okay to have a referendum on one part of the bill and not a referendum on the other part of the bill and if you do think that's okay please tell me why that is okay. [speaker changes] no but in the give and take within a group of people you don't get everything you want but i"m fine doing it one way or another and we don't k now whats going to come out of a conference committee if the senate doesn't uh doesn't accept this bill and concur so it's still has a ways to go [speaker changes] members on behalf of a motion on represented of dawson of the mcdow county the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the galley to Jake Asta with the executive committee of the mcdow county GOP and Vance Caller who is the former GOP chairman in mcdow county can you please rise so we can welcome you (applause) members upon motion of represent shafer of meculburg county the chair is happy to extend the courtesy of the gallery to Rebecca Smith of mculburg county could you please stand so we can welcome you (applause) and upon motion of Rowley of ardell county the courtesy of the gallery is extending itself to R. dell hudson who is a leader with the north mculburg women can you stand so we can welcome you, oh she's gone. for what purpose does the gentleman from Stanley represent the burrer rise [speaker changes] the gentlemen has the floor to speak on the bill [speaker changes] thank you mister chairman I'll be brief, I want to change the subject or topic and talk briefly about the Stanley county portion just to explain that before the vote this is a, this portion of the legislation contained in the senate bill has previously passed the house in a, it was similar to this it passed unanimously I have a feeling that that won't be the case today this is simply changing the makeup of the Stanley county school board and Stanley commission it is slightly different than what was passed originally because we've continued to take input from the community since we've gone along and have it now to where we feel very good about it so we certainly ask for member support if possible, thank you. [speaker changes] to what purpose does the gentlemen from Roanne represent the ford rise? [speaker changes] to debate the motion [speaker changes] the gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill [speaker changes] this is a local bill, I have supported everybody's local bills in here even some that I wasn't wild about and did all of you hold a public forum before you brought that local bill I doubt it I've supported everybody's local bill and I think we should support these guys too because if the people at home don't like it they can take care of it on election day. that's the way I look at it, it's a local bill, thank you [speaker changes] To what purpose does the gentlemen from Durham represent bluekey rise? [speaker changes] mister speaker just to ask for an electronic vote on this bill [speaker changes] there will be an electronic vote [speaker changes] thank you [speaker changes] further discussion, further debate If not the question before the house is the passage of senate bill 317 on its second reading. So many that favor the passage of the bill will vote Aye those opposed will vote no, the court will open the vote. The court will lock the machine and record the vote 74 having voted in the affirmative and 42 for the negative house committee substitute for senate bill 317 passes on its second reading and will without objection [speaker changes] objection! [speaker changes] objection having been noted, quite loudly, the bill will remain on the counter for third reading tomorrow. I believe that representative Rowley you all are ready to proceed on senate bill 523 has the core party read this bill? senate bill 523 is back before us representative Rowley from meckleburg is recognized to explain the bill [speaker changes] thank you mister speaker I really appreciate the question that representative Stam asked because I gave him, I told him I didn't know and as we dug down through it we found the answer.

Future is somewhat obscure but very important. And the bill's actually better than we thought it was. [Speaker Change] This is from Cindy Averett and also confirmed by Ryan Mento of the Treasures office. The way section A works, is any individual tax payer is covered by section A even if they have income from a partnership or a subchapter as corporation. The income tax paid by partnership or subchapter S corporation is from something called a composite return, where a escort or a partnership will file a tax return on behalf of shareholders that live outside of North Carolina and have no other North Carolina income. And that business entity will file on behalf of those shareholders. If those shareholders have other North Carolina income they are required to file an individual return in North Carolina and they will come under section A. So we have a situation where section B only applies to organized business entities such as partnerships, and corporation. And so it also means that no individual tax payer is gonna be hit with a failure to file penalty of greater than $100. And I would ask for your support for the bill. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke rise? [Speaker Change] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Let me just say that, that I agree with the comments of Representative Brawley on the bill, I do wanna draw attention to the fact that the $100 fee could be on someone who owed as little as $5.00, in that sense the bill is, is a bit harsh, and for the small taxpayer. Now I will say that Representative Stam ran an amendment in committee that at least improved it in this respect. The way the bill is originally written if you had a $25.00 refund you were still charge the $100.00 fee, thereby owing $75.00, even though you had a refund coming. We fixed that by saying that, that would not happen if you had the refund, you would not have to pay the $100.00. So while there are elements of I think the $100.00 fee can be really punitive for a small taxpayer. I do think the bill is OK and will support it. Thank you. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does the gentleman from Ashe, Representative Jordan rise? [Speaker Change] Inquiry to the bill sponsor. [Speaker Change] Does the gentleman from Mecklenburg yield? [Speaker Change] I yield. [Speaker Change] The gentleman from Ashe, he yields. [Speaker Change] Thank you Representative Brawley and looking at section B, which is a penalty that is assessed based on quote the amount of the tax. And the definition at the end of B saying the amount of the tax means the tax imposed before credits and tax payments. Is my understanding correct that a company that may have paid in more tax then is due will still have a penalty if they have failed to actually file a report, even though they may have sent in to much money? [Speaker Change] If they have failed to file a report and have failed to request and extension, yes. [Speaker Change] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of Senate bill 523 on its second reading. This committee has favored the passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 111 having voted in the affirmative, and 5 in the negative. House committee substitute for Senate bill 523 passes on its second reading and will without objection, strike that. The bill as a role call bill will remain on the count. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford Representative Brandon rise? Does the gentleman wish to be recorded as having voted aye? [Speaker Change] Aye. [Speaker Change] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye. Brandon, yes sir. Senate bill 236 the clerk will read. [Speaker Change] ?? [Speaker Change] On the supplemental calendar.

[Speaker Changes] House committee substitute for senate bill 236, a bill to be entitled an act to allow sperry court judge of the state to perform marriage ceremonies. General Assembly of North Carolina enact. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has the floor to speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentleman, we have another sperry court judge who wants to perform a ceremony of orality. Former member Toby Fitch’s, who is now a sperry court judge, niece has asked him to officiate at her marriage, and this bill gives him the authority to do that. Just that simple. We have done it for other folks before, so just be gracious, particularly to a sperry court judge. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To ask Representative Michaux a question. [Speaker Changes] Representative Michaux, does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Changes] Yes ma’am, Yes sir. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman yields. [Speaker Changes] More than just your judge, doesn’t this give every judge in the state the authority to do it? [Speaker Changes] You know, I don’t know. It does? [Speaker Changes] It does. [Speaker Changes] You think it does? Well thats good, because if it does, we don’t have to do it anymore. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. In a sense this is an inconsequential bill. I wish well for the happy couple. But ever since I got in the assembly back in 2003, I voted against these and explained why. I’m not gonna give you the fifteen minute speech I did in 2003, where I went back to a case from 1788 to explain why its a violation of separation of powers. But I will say that we haven’t had these for the last few years. They’re embarrassing. Why we do this special thing, it debases the office of sperry court judge. Why is a magistrate not okay for this happy couple, if they don’t want a minister. Its just, the precedence of this is, if you want a Class A wedding, you’re going to get a special bill for a supreme court justice to do your wedding. Class B wedding is a court of appeals judge, and we’re gonna have, its crazy. And the judges aren’t gonna like it, because when you start doing district court judges, what are they gonna have to do all weekend? They’re going to have to go to wedding rehearsals on Friday night and spend Saturday at the wedding. I mean, the judges don’t want this. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak a second time. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has recognized to debate the bill a second time. [Speaker Changes] I really need to answer Representative Steven’s question. It’s only for two days, Representative Stevens. The act becomes effective November 1, so its sitting judge, and magistrates can do it, but this is just a situation folks, and we do things for people every day. And while nobody wants it permanently, this is just a two day situation. And I would suggest that you give him the opportunity to officiate at the ceremony of his niece. [Speaker Changes] Representative Starnes please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman of the house, there was never a finer man that I ever served with than Toby Fitch, and if I can do him this one small favor, then I would be glad to do it, and I would encourage everybody to extend him this courtesy. [Speaker Changes] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To briefly debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, members, Mr. Speaker, this is something that we do a lot. And of course, Representative Stam always speaks against it and always votes against it, and I think maybe even quoted the Magna Carta about it one time, I’m not sure. This is not a big deal in the big scheme of things, but its a big deal to this family. And this is a request made by Judge Fitch from Wilson county to be able to do this wedding for his niece, and we’ve done it before. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] A question for Representative Moore. [Speaker Changes] Glad to yield. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman yields. [Speaker Changes] How many years has it been since we have done this? Four or five? [Speaker Changes] Maybe one or two, I really don’t know. I think we may have done one last session. But, a lot of water under the bridge the last couple of years, Representative Stam. [Speaker Changes] Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill.

does resume the time error-message to all of the eighties and has pastor of saint-Goblin County cities are in the edges was the straits of the lead them to safety-on-the-time in 71 course of the top of his non-combative and 5/8 to 700-person, PlayStation part I'll see if a person show only if residents of studio yesterday, U.S. Jan Jones Jurassic question I'm 17 matches on the force and nine of 1991 as the slices of the invalidation consummation times and that's when I have no idea the spinners and the user must present time, you are out of the city's same questions and placing an ad in his life as it is not an error by our staff as fines and legal consequences is there because you know zone also time is 1990s as a slot in the header of Mount Olivet cemetery for the masses of soon as this site on which the stairs and-white house's passage the house may substitute a single to do a son Zachary alderman out all those men and women ?? who was important 106 and a different nominated as the substitutes of the basics as presently on that section of the readers of Johnson time and money are processed president did not request for the house passed the house may substitute simple to the times was a reading Alderson out while president has ever may substitute Simon six hits misses a reading of the returns a son ?? has done, but no simple 4 to 4 point impressive since taking office and scholars will cause interest rates and offers it is time to open on helping out at the base of operations for operations and one time stations and Susan for purposes of refried beans announcements and swapped for countries of the same time was in tears and brown wanted an active copies of the house president and CEO of RJR President Johnson when I'm more person of the station purpose to speak, of the option of fish and he's on his resume coaching items taken as the house rejected a distant and Ryland is the point out, with things they all in 1. lead in the eighth time expeditiously zero all right now in place of the main final major piece of business that we needed out in the forties with a session Johnson of time and again on phrase of the state is publication for wire fence and steadier profit the railings runners in this budget ??? Instructions: one Medicaid time PAC- place to live as the state of some two million dollars within six years the operator tiles $3.00 of his standing up one of the im and solid players, as they spot, Smith veteran of the time we immediately, more for Medicaid and what we're doing as much out of 44 men and women in this instruction on everything possible to solidify stabilize this program as we move toward much deeper for identification of the governor's call for Ms. Johnson is call tonight is the San Juan area finance reform-range version sometime here on Mondays as rate reductions from his question of a business has less than the ?? ?? ?? ?? ?? …………………

Important to spurring North Carolina's economy and it seems while the New York Times may not agree the Wall Street Journal seems to agree. One curiosity from yesterday, some of the comments from some of my colleagues on the Democratic side of the aisle seem to frame a moral equivalence between eugenics and the loss of revenue for a particular program or the limitation that someone might have on some contract, employment contract. I just find that bizarre. I find it a little bit distasteful. I really find it very, very strange. And I don't know, maybe some folks on that side of the aisle that wanna sort of revise their, their version of moral equivalence, I'll let them be the judge of that. But let me come back to the heart and soul of this budget. This is a very solid budget for the state of North Carolina. As I said, we have addressed the largest driver in our budget over the last several years, Medicaid. We have addressed the need for tax reform, making space for that in our budget. We fully fund school growth, university growth, community college growth. That's all fully funded in this budget. We have funds for group homes, that's been a major issue that people have been interested in addressing. We fund mental health fully. We fund economic development initiatives that are so critical and important to this state. We fully fund our state health plan, we fund retirement plan. We go a long way to better funding. Our savings reserve, our repairs and renovations. We even provide some money as Representative Holloway worked on very diligently. ?? harmless funds, ?? seven and a half million dollars in ?? harmless funds for a number of very vulnerable communities all across this state who need that. Representative Jackson you should at least appreciate this since ?? is top of the list. We provide funding for historic areas, the symphony, the art museum, veterans programs. We meet the needs of this great state of ours. And I do believe that this budget does achieve the state's goal as I set out yesterday in my comments, of a well educated, healthy, and safe citizenry. With the opportunity to work in a rewarding career and the freedom to enjoy the natural, cultural and historic treasures of our great state. This conference report, again it heeds the call of our citizens that they have made toward us. That we have worked for the last three years. And that's to have a budget that is realistic, that is reasonable, and that is responsible. And I commend this budget to the body. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will turn on her light. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When you say that we fully fund the needs of education, I don't understand that at all. I think we are not funding the needs of education. I think we are not taking care of our teachers. We're not taking care of training teachers, of keeping teachers. I have gotten so many emails and I'm assuming many of you have too, from teachers, in last 48 hours. Teachers who don't understand, year after year, we are not respecting their profession. Not respecting the hard work they do. And its not just the pay. It's at so many levels that we are not respecting the profession of education. I came here believing that this is the most important thing, we, as a civilized society do is to educate the next generation. To teach them how to be responsible citizens and productive citizens. We're gonna lose our best and brightest teachers, not just for not paying them, but for not respecting them.

for not, not respecting what they work so hard to do in this state. I hear from teachers all the time. One of the ones I just heard from wasn't even about her pay or her job. It was about how to teach civic responsibility to her students, to her 4th grade class because she had not grown up being politically active and in writing to me once before, it was her first step towards being politically active. And she wanted her students to grow up having that experience that she didn’t grow up with. And I think about how many teachers are out there trying to figure out how to do this better. The Masters - getting a Masters in any other profession is a respected thing to do. It’s considered part of making yourself better at your job. My son in law who’s in banking, getting a Masters will help him move up the ladder quicker. But for teachers we say it doesn’t matter. It isn’t important. It doesn’t matter that you’re trying to be better at what you do. And I have had teachers come to me after our school system funded their Masters program to say “I’m a good teacher but now I’m a better teacher because I’ve really looked at my methods and what I do and I’ve gotten better at this and I really appreciate the school system appreciating what we do. Well now we’re not appreciating them and we’re not acknowledging them. I think the Teaching Fellows Program in North Carolina was a wonderful program that was nationally respected because of what we were doing to keep young people teaching in our state. And we’re dropping it. We’re not going to fund it anymore. We’re saying it’s not important. I’m not saying that Teach for America is not a good program because we get some of the best and the brightest in that program. And they come in and they teach for 2 years and they leave. So for 2 years they do a good thing. My daughter who was a teaching fellow and is a great teacher said the Teach for America kids were better than she thought they would be. But then they leave. And one of her close friend’s who is a Teach for America teacher is leaving this year to go on to law school, I believe, but some type of graduate school and she was a really good teacher for 2 years. We didn’t keep her. And as long as we’re not paying them we can’t even dream of keeping them because we’re not paying them enough to stay teaching in our school systems. There are a lot of things in this budget that I don’t agree with but the education part is the part that literally has torn up my stomach for the last few days, that has kept me from sleeping for the last few nights, just trying to think what I can do or say to reach people who aren’t even looking at me about something that’s so important. I guess if I didn’t want to hear what you were saying, I wouldn’t look at you either. But this is important. This is something we’re all going to regret unless we’re just wanting to point at public schools and say “See we said they were saying they were failing, now they failed” because they’re going to if we treat them this way. I would ask that we not concur with this budget Please, unless we can do something for education. Thank you. [Speaker changes] Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes] Speak on the ?? of what? [Speaker changes] The latest ?? [Speaker changes] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the house I stand to speak in opposition to this ?? report. Much of what I would’ve said about it has already been shared by my colleagues, but I heard a moment ago that this budget meets the needs of all of the people. I don’t agree with that. It might meet the need of some, but not all the people. Certainly not all the people ,who I represent and who have contacted me. But like most of the individuals that have reached out to me, I do agree that there are a number of hurtful things in this report that will negatively impact our people whether they need services in hospitals or schools or universities or whether they need services of nonprofit organizations. It will hurt those organizations and it will hurt the people who are receiving services from those

Adams: I’ve always believed that around here we make a lot of laws that affect populations of people without having sufficient information about what the outcomes on those people will actually be. I’m concerned that by cutting the dollars that we are from public schools, that it will result in a loss of teachers and assistants as well. And instead of providing resources to the public schools as we should be, we’re diverting many of those dollars for private school vouchers. But I’m also concerned that not only will the cuts to education cause us to lose teachers and assistants, I’ve got to tell you that my daughter is an excellent teacher in Guilford County schools and has taught there and even in Wake County and some other places for the past 17 years. But she was so disillusioned, like many of her colleagues, that she is looking for something else to do. We’re going to lose a lot of good professionals because they believe now that we don’t really respect what they do. If you work hard, if you try to improve yourself and earn additional degrees and credentials, they’re not going to be recognized and will serve no benefit for you. I can’t imagine… and I heard yesterday, we talked about effective, quality teachers. I don’t believe that the action we are taking in this budget will get us quality teachers and will keep them in the classroom. The other thing that I’m concerned about as it relates to our teachers is our violation of their due process. We’re eliminating their tenure, so teachers will not have their due process rights, when we have state employees – and teachers are state employees – but other state employees will continue to have theirs. So without this due process, then teachers who would normally advocate for students, for themselves, are going to feel threatened and they’ll be reluctant to do that. As a matter of fact, I had a letter from a teacher who says that protecting tenure allows me, a 30-year teacher, a veteran, to advocate for students without worrying that someone in an administrative position will fire me for disagreeing with him or her. Tenure allows me to engage in debate about what’s best for our school without worrying that disagreeing with administration will put my job in jeopardy. I have hundreds of emails today, and I’ve gotten them throughout this process, from teachers who are concerned about that as well. But also, as we face high unemployment and a troubled economy, this budget will also result in a loss of jobs. I heard a moment ago, we talked about support for nonprofit organizations. Yes, we have provided for some, but we have created a tremendous problem, especially for minority organizations and organizations that are run by and support women, in this overall process, as we have eliminated many of our minority organizations totally from this budget, organizations that have provided service and gained tremendous reputations for 20 and 30 years. We have disregarded those folks as well. Of concern to me along the way has also been the negative impact that this budget totally will have on women and families. For example, most of the teachers we have in our system are women. Most of the people who are unemployed right now are women. Most of the people, many of those who run these nonprofit organizations, especially minority organizations, are women as well. I will say that I am pleased that this budget does provide support for eugenics. We probably should have done it long ago. I’m happy to see Representative Womble here today, but I’m sure he understands this process of politics here. I don’t know if he’s had a chance to look at this budget. There are a lot of hurtful things there and I’m sure that he’s going to understand why I am going to vote no on this budget today. And I would ask that you would do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Stam: Mr. Speaker. Speaker: Representative Stam, please state your purpose. Stam: Would Representative Adams yield for a question? Speaker: Representative Adams, do you yield? Adams: Yes sir, I will. Speaker: She yields. Stam: Representative Adams, you talked about the diversion of resources from what you call vouchers. Since the fiscal memo shows it’s a $1.7 million savings, would you propose if we did that in that first year…

Do you propose that we do away without these scholarships and maybe have fewer teacher assistants and fewer teachers or fewer books? Where would you make up that $1.7 million in savings that you want to do away with? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not sure I understand your question Representative Stam?? It probably sounds like a little trick. You can talk to me about that later. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wonder if Representative Adams would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, Representative Stam asked you if you would try to find the $1.5 million that the fiscal note said for year one. I wonder if you were aware or not, I'm sure that you were, that for every succeeding year after that it is a multimillion dollar loss to the State, with those losses increasing each and every time and that's not even counting hte additional losses that will happen to local schools and local school districts that are not accounted for in a fiscal note that's fairly limited. Would that be correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are absolutely correct. I'm sure Representative Stamm knows that as well. Thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Glazier yield for questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Be delighted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier are you not aware that in the subsequent years the savings to local LEA's exceed the cost to the State? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Representative Stam, and I'll tell you why. The fiscal note, and I read it entirely, the multi-versions of the fiscal note, show a continuing and extended losses to the State going anywhere from $2.2 million as I recall all the way up to $6 to $7 million depending on the year out. There are some projected savings in the local units but the problem of course is an inability to really accurately at all project the savings to the local unit and all of the deficits that are not taken into account in the fiscal note that will happen in the local units because it's all based on #1, how many students enroll, #2, what you do with the percentages, #3, what schools they come from and what happens there since they don't come and aren't going to go in neat packages of 20. But I could go on but those are at least my first few points. Thank you Representative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Stam would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield? He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, from your detailed research could you explain what the actual experience in Florida was with this program? [SPEAKER CHANGES] In Florida I think last year I think Brian has the exact figure, their equivalent to our fiscal research division showed $58 million in savings in one year to the State of Florida. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, I can't really match the eloquence of my colleagues on the education portion of this budget, its funding and elimination of policies and important programs and the changes in tenure and those aspects of the budget that are particularly troubling to those of us on this side of the aisle so I won't repeat that. I wanted to focus on an area of the budget that hasn't really gotten much attention and that's in ???. Representative Adams did mention the elimination of many of those important economic development programs, particularly those that affect minorities. But I just wanted to note that it seems that provisions for Senate bill 10 were slipped into the budget that wipe out the membership of the Environmental Management Commission and remove the conflict of interest language and make changes to the Coastal Resources Commission, the Coastal Resources Advisory Commission, which are particularly problematic. That while there may be some efficiencies achieved by the proposed merger between the Division of Water Quality and the Division of Water Resources they have fairly different missions and it doesn't seem that there's going to be much, that the staff needs are going to be less, because the merger although there is a $2 million cut in the budget to those and this represents about a 15% cut to those divisions. ??? has been cut back 35% over the past several years and that deals with a very important water quality pollutant in our state. The number one which is sedimentation and runoff and that's going to be a real problem. And that's in a time when we were in a recession and not having to review as many construction sites. As I understand it we're down to 40 staff for 8,000 sites across the state. So that's a problem. And I did want to ask a question if I could of one of the bill's sponsors. There's a provision

And the bill – sorry, I'm not – and I'll just ask Representative Dollar or one of his colleagues, it's the Jordan Lake Water Quality Improvement demonstration project. This seems to be so specifically designed as to be for a particular company, which is exempt from the normal state contracting and bidding, and transfers 1.3 million for this technology, I assume to help clean up Jordan Lake. Could somebody speak to that? I don't know, Representative Dollar, or somebody on the NER, because of the NER provision. Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. Did the lady ask in the form of a question and Representative Dollar, do you yield to the question? He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to ask you about this specific provision. Is it designed for one specific company? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know. What I understand is that it's designed to deal with clean-up issues in Lake Jordan that folks have talked about for a number of years. I assume if one of the other members has more specific information on that, I would certainly direct the question to them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. It just seems to be drafted in a way that is one specific company, and I'm not sure that that's not considered private involvement, which may not be constitutional. But I think they are not... Representative West? Do you have any insight, maybe, on that provision? Okay. Well, okay, so. Anyway, I think that there are some pretty big hits that are being taken by our conservation funding, which are really important for water quality protection and for our quality of life, and as was pointed out a couple of weeks ago, we've slipped to 30th in the nation in quality of life. Not something we should aspire to, so there are many reasons to vote against this budget, and I urge you to vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Charles Graham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Speaker, to speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr Speaker and members. I know a lot has been said in the last few hours about this budget and the impact it's having on our public education system in the state, and I felt that, as an educator -- not a politician, educator – I need to stand and speak on behalf of our teachers and our children and our principals and our administrators. And I did want to make a few points, I don't want to be repetitive in terms of what has been said. But I sit here this morning in this body responding to emails from teachers from my district, and many from your districts, and giving some advice. I hope, and also giving hope to our teachers that another day will come, and it'll be a better day. I believe that we're going to see, especially along the border of North Carolina – the southern border, the northern border, and the western borders – teachers leaving this state. I believe that. That is a repetitive message that I'm getting from teachers. Enough is enough. They've been ignored long enough. I will tell you that teachers understood when we were in tough economic times. They understood that they would not be getting financial support from the state. They understood that. They were well with that. But as they see today that this body's giving away millions to the top 1 percent in our state, we're balancing our budget on their backs and the backs of our children. It's hard for them to understand, at this point in our history, why are we being treated this way? Giving away millions in vouchers, and yes I'm going to call a spade a spade, it is a voucher. Teachers don't understand. Teachers are fearful. Morale is low in our public school situation, our public school settings. We do have a shortage of teachers in this state, you know. We do have [RECORDING ENDS]

A shortage of teachers, well-qualified teachers, science and math. And we're saying that teachers are not important, with regards to this appropriation. Our public school system is not important, with regards to this budget. That's shameful. We all, in this body, are products of a public school system. We all are here because we had teachers pushing us, supporting us, encouraging us. They developed our personalities. They instilled values in us. In addition to that, they had other duties. Bus duty, cafeteria duty, PTAs, football games, basketball games, night duty, giving time away from their families. Actually, I know teachers who spend their own personal money buying supplies to make their classroom situation a better learning environment for their children. A better teaching situation, because they want to be good teachers. They are nation-builders. We're here because of these teachers. And we say to them, you're not important in this budget. You're not valued. And I'm standing here on behalf of all the teachers in this state. Those who have not responded to any of the emails, those who have called me, those who are saying “Please support us.” I'm doing that on their behalf. I'm here on their behalf. This is what motivated me to be here. And we have educators in this body. We have people who've sacrificed. We've had teachers who have come and gone and have devoted their life to a profession that they believed in, a cause they believed in. And we're here today, saying to these teachers, you are not important as we deliberate this budget today. I don't care what you say, you can't convince me or the other teachers across this state that they're important today. On top of that, you are saying to our teachers, well let's put $10 million into private education, and let's let those teachers out there teach to a different standard. Let's let those teachers not be required to have a teaching certificate. Let's not have a level playing surface. This is what this tells me: it tells me that we've got two systems, when the Constitution says we should support one. Now if you can look yourself in the face and walk out of here today, push that button that you're going to push today, and live with it, God help you. We should not be doing what we're going to do today, on the backs of our number one institution. That's our educational system, our public education system. We should not do this today. But if you're going to vote your conscience, and you do that, then I'm going to tell you something. Teachers are bright. They're smart. They're intelligent. They're hard-working, they are driven. They are motivated. Don't you forget that. Don't you ever forget that. Thank you, Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the last several months I've been spending a lot of time on one small portion of the bill, the education area, and while I've enjoyed that work, ?? my views I guess in the end are very close to Representative Holloway's, that he expressed on the floor yesterday. There's some hard decisions that were made here. We tried to get to the best position we did. I wish there was more money to do a range of things that need to be done, and I'm looking forward to a longer process over a period of years to get to where we need to be. Over the last 48 hours, though, I've spent some time [RECORDING ENDS]

Going through the rest of the budget the pieces of which I have looked at. I was intending to stand up and ask representative Dollar the same questions that Representative Harrison has asked. But I will leave at this. The Provision that Representative Harrison raised is on pages 226, 227 in the bill related to the Lake Jordan Nutrition mitigation demonstration project. It’ a special provision in the budget. And It appears to give about [??] state funds. And it’s gone up in a way it’s really interesting if you look at the bill and the you go on the web site of a entity called Solar Bead, you will see its look like the thing has been gone up in a way to provide the contract to the vendor. Its n interesting mixture of both what’s public in the web site and what apparently isn’t public. But I do think that what this bill does in this piece is it provides state funds to one vendor, it exempts from state contract rules for this lake Jordan Project. And the bill to do that is on the calendar for today or for tomorrow. So these things need to be looked together. Having found this one, I wonder I don’t frankly have the time to find out other things like this. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker [Speaker Changes] Representative McElraft Please state your purpose [Speaker Changes] I would like a question to Rep McGrady [Speaker Changes] Rep McGrady, do you do? [Speaker Changes] I do [Speaker Changes] Rep McGrady can you point out where it mentions the word Solar Bead [Speaker Changes] It doesn’t. That would be patently unconstitutional to put that in there. What you would do Rep McElraft is broaden a way that almost no other vendor can meet the specifications in the bill and that really appears what this is and again this is not my area of expertise. [Speaker Changes] Follow up [Speaker Changes] Would it be Ok if I answer what I think is what we were told and may be that can kind of clarify for Rep Harrison and also Rep McGrady. I will be happy to do that. [Speaker Changes] Speaker. I would certainly yield for her to answer the question I sough of posed. That would be helpful. [Speaker Changes] Rep McElraft You yield to Rep McGrady’s question. [Speaker Changes] I do [Speaker Changes] She yields [Speaker Changes]Thank you I am sorry about this business way I didn’t know any other way. We put this in the budget if the lake Jordan 515 passes. Dean has asked for a study to look at alternative ways to clean up Lake Jordan at the site and so yes there are solar Bead technology out there and I am not sure if it’s one company that it’s patented from. But it was my understanding that they were going to do a study of different technologies and I don’t think there is a mention of solar bead anywhere in this budget. We left that to the experts. The deaner people. The people who know the environment, they know the technology water resources are great time reader who run the department suggested this technology or something similar in order to see something similar in order to see if there is way that we can cost effectively clean up Lake Jordan without asking our counties to spend so much money on the upstream. If we can kind of clean this side itself. So that’s what it’s all about. It’s only if this bill 515 passes. Then that part of the clean water that’s what clean water trust fund is all about is to see if this thing could be a technology that can actually help our state. That’s why it’s in the budget. [Speaker Changes] I thank the lady for the explanation. My Point though, I am sure the intention is good here and the hope is that the technology could work. But I would suggest to you that there is no evidence that the technology could work on a scale.

That is being put forward here. And I would suggest to you further while there is no specific reference to no one company, go online yourself and compare the language here with what the product is and you're going to find out that what we've basically got, I believe, is a sole source contract. And of course, my concern is not just with respect to the waste of a million three here but what other sole source contracts might there be in this bill? And, I served on the Clean Water Management Trust Fund and no I don't think that's an appropriate use of the funds here. And as many of my colleagues know, I have real concerns about how we have now brought the Clean Water Management Trust Fund into the department basically. And back when many of us were in the minority, the Clean Water Management Trust Fund did a pretty good job of funding projects even in the minority districts at that time. They had an independent board and they weren't dependent upon going to the Governor and getting political say. They did what was right and some of my colleagues on this side of the aisle have told me that there wasn't that sort of interference. And I'm really concerned about the structural problems here. My final concern I guess, again, and Representative Harrison stole my thunder a little bit is that we refused to go along with Senate Bill 10 and now, lo and behold, where is part of it? Of course it's the part that relates to those darn environmental people. And when you look at the way that the people that are being knocked off, and these are people, there's a very clear effort here being made with respect to how this, the ERC specifically, but others are being handled. And so, if I were a Wake County legislator, and I'm not thank God, I would be very uncomfortable with this provision here and the feeling that we are going to clean up Lake Jordan with unproven technology and I voted on it. It won't probably matter this year but somewhere down the road I think this is not a real good project. In summary, I struggle with the budget. I know this is a compromise and I've been through the process before. There are many very good things to recommend to you in the budget but like Representative Holloway yesterday, I felt like I needed to not just go along and not point out there are some very disturbing things in this budget too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister Speaker. Members, education is our most important and our most effective anti-poverty program. It is also our most effective and our most important pro-business, pro-growth, pro-jobs program. The cuts in this budget and in previous years to education undermine our future, undermines the future of the poor children in this state, undermines our ability to provide good jobs for those people. I don't often talk about my roots but I am a child of a farming family from Arkansas. In the Depression there, after the Depression came the Dust Bowl. There wasn't any food. There wasn't any food.My farming father became a migrant worker and traveled across the country by rail and finally got to California where there was food all year. My family moved to California and I have often thanked my parents for putting us children into a fine education system because we all blossomed. I was a little reluctant to move to North Carolina when we became part of the UNC family. But when I got here and I

Through this story of the University of North Carolina and the visionary founders of this state who were determined to provide a fine education for their children. It made, it was easy for me to adopt this as my home state. We have been blessed with visionary education leaders throughout our history in the depression of the general assembly raise taxes to support our local schools so our poor children, and this state is still a poor state, so they can continue to be in school. Governor Stanford and I disagree with this but he raised the food tax to support education. He was a visionary leader. He made hard decisions in favor of education. We’ve had a smart start in Governor Hunt and this wasn’t done by Democrats alone, these were not democratic decisions. They were done by partisan, they were done by both Republicans and Democrats to support, to support the children of this State. So the future of our State will depend on education and we, we should not be cutting education like we are in this budget. We should find a way to fund our first priorities. We have made bad decisions these past two years by taking so much of our revenue stream out of our, our budget that we couldn’t fund this most important program. So now we do have the brain drain that UNC has started, for example. University of North Carolina is one of our most important economic drivers in the State. It is ranked tenth in the world as the best research university that’s based on its ability to track federal grant money. We are now beginning to lose those faculty members of the, of the must retain faculty members that UNC are research grant ?? at UNC. This year we’re losing twice of those people that we try to retain as we lost last year. With those grants go there, their grant, with those professors go the grant money, with the professors go the graduate students that are doing the research. With the loss of the grants and the research go are innovative new jobs in North Carolina. Many of those people stay in North Carolina. These decisions are really not just; they’re really not just ill advised, they’re really decisions that undermine our future. I want to just mention one other, one other specific program, the cancer hospital. Several years ago Republicans and Democrats like funded a fifty million dollar research grant at the, at the UNC cancer hospital. That UNC cancer hospital has become a lead in cancer research over the past five or six years doing major clinical trials, new innovations, treatments for the poor people of this State, for the people who can’t afford or don’t have insurance. This year we’re cutting that fund by seven million dollars and sending it to another institution. Historically this body, the general assembly has honoured those special funds that have been set aside for those kinds of purposes. If you want to fund, create a new fund at another institution, you found new money to do it. You didn’t cut a successful organization, successful program to give that money away to somebody else. That’s undermining our future and undermining our great institutions. I hope you’ll join me in voting ‘no’ on this conference report. There’s still money to fix up some of these things and I think we should be doing that. We should be setting aside about creating a budget that will be a pro-growth, pro-business, anti-poverty budget. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Speaker. Members of the House, I begin my comments by asking a question and giving what I think is the appropriate answer. The question is, “Why do we like poetry? My answer is that the poet finds a way to leave out the unnecessary words. I still endeavor in my comments to, at here to that definition. It is obvious that the campaign ?? for the 2014 elections have firmly been drawn on the debate.

And this is about this budget and this is the campaign headlines Republicans have decimated k-12 education. It has been my observation that oftentimes facts are strangers in this body. It is sad to me that in the public debates that we have, and budget time, we often are willing to use our wonderful, dedicated teachers and our precious children, as ping pong balls to bounce from one side of the budgetary table to the other. That is saying, to me, "let me enter at least one fact that I have personal experience with into the debate today." In my county of Duplin, in my first budget experience after a couple of years ago, in May of 2011, the headline appeared in the paper "local school system notifies 210 of position cuts for the 2011-2012 school year" Ladies and gentlemen of the house, I witnessed first hand the devastating effect that that had on the teachers of Duplin county. It was totally unnecessary, but yet, because of the ?? requirements, it scared the pudding out of so many people. Guess how many of those people were cut: none. None, zero, none of them. They ended up with more employees in the school system than they ever had before. The political redirect to be believed is going to have to follow this line of logic: that the republican majority, in one budget cycle because this one hasn't taken any effect yet, therefore it's had no physical effect yet because it's not in place. But yet in one budget cycle of two years, the republican majority has decimated public education. I just don't believe anybody's going to believe that. 1 out of 140 years. In conclusion, a wise man once said "a lie has speed, but truth has endurance." Thus it is, truth having endurance, this budget will positively stand the test of time. I urge you to support this budget. Thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, my issue to follow on is what are we doing for jobs in North Carolina? Representative ?? said this budget is really all about Medicaid. That North Carolina couldn't do more for Medicaid. I'm just pointing one of the big areas of concerns I have in this budget in my district is my community hospitals. I would put the question slightly different. Medicaid is a 40 year program. Great experience in North Carolina. 14 billion dollars of our state budget. It's 14 million dollar program only about a third of it is in our budget because 2/3 of it is a federal match in round numbers. This budget is affect my local hospitals by adding assessments to them. By payment reductions to them. By withholding payments for them over time with stipulations. By denying the Medicaid expansion, we lose over 400 jobs in my local hospitals. In Haywood, jackson and ?? counties.

in the last budget when we cut, this legislature cut, this previous legislature cut a billion dollars out of Medicaid we lost 240-some jobs in my three rural hospitals. We are struggling. We are losing physicians. We're losing jobs, good jobs, and when your community's hospitals begin to wane and you do not have quality healthcare in your community it is difficult to recruit industry and business and quality residents to your community. Quality education, quality healthcare is absolutely essential for us in Western North Carolina to recruit the kind of jobs and industries and businesses we need to create jobs. So we're losing jobs in these very sectors, education and healthcare, and these very sectors drive our recruitment of private sector jobs. So I have big problems with that, but what I would, I would slightly change the [??] on Medicaid. If we expanded Medicaid, if we would reconsider that at some point, we would meet the test. Because I don't think we're meeting the test of being realistic, reasonable, and responsible when it comes to jobs. When it comes, and these aren't Democrat jobs I want to tell you. These jobs are bipartisan. It's just as much a Republican job or an Independent's job as it is a Democrat's job. This is jobs for everybody. This is jobs for my people. Jobs for your people. Each and every member in this body has a similar dilemma that I have in my district. In the rural sections you're just like me. But realistic, how are we going to help low-wage workers get healthcare? Just because we don't expand Medicaid they don't get well. They don't have the resources. So there is no way they can get high quality healthcare if we don't use our partnership in Medicaid to help them. So realistically they don't have an option. There's 1,500 in my district that do not have healthcare. They don't have primary healthcare, they don't have preventative healthcare, they don't have mental health services and they are in dire need of all. Reasonable, reasonable, is it reasonable in an economy that's trying to recover from a recession, which we are in North Carolina, again I point out we're the fifth highest in unemployment, we need jobs. We need to recover in North Carolina. Is it reasonable to deny 2.5 billion dollars of our citizens federal tax dollars that they have paid to the Untied States government, and we're denying those dollars to come back to North Carolina. Is that a reasonable thing to do? Because if we brought those dollars back we would have those 400 jobs in my district. We would have 23-25,000 more jobs in North Carolina this year. This needs to be reconsidered. Responsible, responsible. If we would reconsider that I would get those 400 jobs. My 1,500 citizens in my district that makes less than $8.00 an hour could have healthcare for the first time in their lives. Healthcare is essential. The number one and number two reason that children drop out of school are healthcare related. The number one is somebody gets pregnant. Well family planning, comprehensive healthcare for child and mother and family would help that. The number two reason children drop out of school is healthcare related. Somebody in their family has untreated mental health conditions. Their family is in uproar, the child is at risk and they're at four and five times the risk of dropping out. Healthcare matters at every sector of our communities, jobs, people,

The North Carolina Institute of Medicine estimates that there will be twenty to thirty citizens that will die, dead, and in each of yours, you will have twenty or thirty constituent’s, that will die for lack of health care, that is already paid for, that we are denying to come to North Carolina for jobs, lives, it is not responsible. We lose by not creating these jobs, by not expanding Medicaid; we lose these twenty five thousand primary healthcare jobs, providing healthcare for 600 thousand people. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stam, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGE] Would Representative Queen yield for two questions? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I will when I get done, because I get done [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative hold for one second please. Representative Queen do you yield for the questions? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I will when I am finished with my comments [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman does not yield at this time [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’m trying to make the point. Is this responsible? Is this responsible? Because If we would do this. If we would reconsider this, and we create these jobs, providing this healthcare, no additional costs, we actually are losing $158 million of new revenue that comes from these twenty-five thousand jobs, and that’s from our own research. Folks here in the general assembly. You all get the spreadsheets, same ones I get. $158 million we don’t have in this budget, in addition to these twenty-five jobs. Now these are primary jobs, now we all know if we bring back to North Carolina, $2.5 billion we don’t have in North Carolina, create twenty-five thousand jobs, we have a multiplier effect. This is new stuff. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGE] Point of order [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ladies recognized [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker, I’ve been incredibly patient, and we’ve ranted on about Medicaid and the lack of expansion, which is not in this budget. It was a separate bill and I would ask that you direct the conversation accordingly. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Your point is well taken, and Representative Queen I would ask that you stick to the budget conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’m trying to stick to the main point, which is we are not using Medicaid and the options of Medicaid to create the jobs to provide the stimulus to bring North Carolina back from recovery. We’ve talked plenty about tax reform, which was the other big point, and our side has tried to make the point, that if you just give the vast majority 80% of the cuts to the top few percent 2, 3,4% it’s in that range, 5% would certainly cover it. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGE] Additional point of order, we’re not on tax reform either [SPEAKER CHANGE] Point is taken Representative Queen [SPEAKER CHANGE] I’m really using my guide, from representative dollars points, that this budget is all about Medicaid and tax reform and I agree, but I do think we are going the wrong way. It’s not realistic, it’s not responsible and it’s not reasonable and I ask you to vote no against this conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Stam, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, would Representative Queen yield for 2 short questions? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Certainly Representative Stam [SPEAKER CHANGE] He yield [SPEAKER CHANGE] Do you have grandchildren or great grandchildren? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do, no I don’t. I just dream about them [SPEAKER CHANGE] 2nd question [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up, Representative Queen do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I certainly do [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Queen whether they are grandchildren or great nephews or great great whatevers, have you consulted them about the morality of asking them to pay the debt to the Chinese for all the borrowed money for the money you want us to spend in North Carolina to solve our problems today? Have you asked the young people that question? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Let’s see, how can I say that? We have paid our $2.5 billion to Washington, and are we just going to leave it there for California or Texas or Florida?

We’re going to bring it back to North Carolina. And I am of the mind that if we grow this economy, if we create jobs, there will be a great deal less debt all around. I worry about spiraling downward rather than the scenario you laid out there my friend. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, there will be three additional conferees appointed to senate bill 10, those representative will be Burr, Dollar and Hager, the senate will so notified. Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentleman, I have not yet spoken yet on this conference report, and it’s the area I would like to address, I’m concerned about the entire conference report, but the area I am most concerned with is education, because I have spent the Lions share of my life in education, specifically as it relates to teachers and teaching conditions. I heard my good friend Representative Dixon say, there will be no loss of teachers, and I think he’s probably right in that respect. We have to have a warm body in every classroom, we have to by law, but I am concerned about the possibility of certification of some of these teachers. They may be warm bodies, but not certified in the field of expertise we want them to teach. Now, North Carolina does not provide enough teachers, we don’t have enough teaching institutions to provide enough teachers for the loss of those teachers we have through attrition and through retirement, we’ve known that for a number of years, and for a long time we have been the benefactors of states who have trained their teachers, such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and several other states, we have been able to recruit good quality teachers out of those states. But I’m afraid we have broken the cookie jar. We now have no incentive for those folk to come to North Carolina to teach when we are going to be 48th or 49th in teacher pay? They just as soon go to Mississippi and go down to the gulf coast and enjoy themselves. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Lucas a question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Be happy to as soon as I finish [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does not yield at this time [SPEAKER CHANGES] Teacher pay will not be raised in this conference report. So that those teachers that are now here, will have to assess whether they want to stay. Many have stayed due to teaching conditions. Well, they are going to lose that, with losing teacher tenure. We will have many many teachers who will say, well gosh, if I can’t be granted that protection of tenure, I may as well just go into Tennessee, in fact I’ve had a ?? I’m leaving to go to Tennessee. I’ll make more money, and I might get my tenure back. Or they may go to Virginia or to South Carolina. Go across the border to work. Because we’ll have no tenure, no guarantee of job security. We are also increasing class size; so think about it if you were a teacher. Why would you want to stay here, lose your protection of tenure and increase your responsibility with more students for the same pay? If you could do better. They can do better, and we can do better. So we are losing our teachers, we’re not preparing enough teachers we’re not able to recruit teachers from out of state as we have traditionally been able to do, so we’re going to be in a quandary, so you say, well maybe we will just increase higher education, no we’re not doing that either.

we're cutting the resources for higher education. So we'll probably have less teachers, fewer teachers going into teaching. And goodness gracious, teaching students. Education is the bedrock of any modern society. Even a ancient society. You want an educated public. You get your educated public by good, quality teachers. But we're saying no. Then even if they went back to school, we're saying well, that advanced degree is not very lucrative, we do not put a lot of emphasis on that so you don't have to do that. We're not encouraging them to do that, so why remain in North Carolina as a teacher? It hurts. We've had several, I mean several executive administrations who've really placed a premium on education. And I can cite you Governor Holshouser, who really put a premium on education. I can cite you Governor Hunt, who is known around this country and still is known for what he did for K-12 education in North Carolina. I'm afraid that we won't have that bragging right any longer. So I urge you to please take a look at what we're doing here. We can do better, and yes, I'll be happy to yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Iler, he yields to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Rep. Lucas. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Rep. Lucas, I was reading a while back and was looking at a chart for the national educational association. And I've been hearing numbers, about 46, 48, and that sort of thing. I looked at the charts from the national education association, the NEA, and the contribution of the state to teacher salaries, and we're number 11 in the nation. Not number 1, not number 48, number 11. And not local, not federal, but state funds, we were number 11 in the country. So that's a little different than number 48, wouldn't you agree? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If, I would thank you for the question. If all things were equal in other states, I would concur. But you have to recognize that in North Carolina, it's in a very unique posture. We grant statewide salaries to all of our teachers. You have many other, we have dependent school systems. You have many other school systems around the country who have independent school systems, and we have even school systems who can levy their own taxes and they can skew, depending one way or the other. But our state has been recognized as one of the states to be desired to have statewide teacher salaries. And yes, we have gone down, down down. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield for a follow up question? Rep. Lucas? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative. So would you also agree with me that perhaps discussing the state budget is very important, but it should also be discussing with your county if teachers are leaving, with your county, or my county, or any other counties to possibly chip in and make the total package better than what it might be at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would agree if teachers had the resources of wealth to do that. But I'm sure that you would recognize that many of our poor counties cannot keep up, let alone catch up or supersede the standard, because they can't provide supplements. They just don't have the resources. They're just too poor. So in that instance, we're happy to have a statewide system. But that statewide salary cannot continue to go downward. I hope that helps you with your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Pierce, please state your [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would I be in order to ask Rep. Dollar a question, at this time I'd need to wait for the queue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Dollar, do you yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Rep. Dollar. Rep. Dollar, we've had a lot of different discussions different issues as it relates to the budget, but I wanted to ask a question that many of us might have on our mind. We have some hard working ladies and gentlemen who work at the General Assembly and I had a chance to really

look at the budget like I should, but is there anything in the general assembly budget that would give any increases to our LA's, or any of the workers here in the general assembly. I know many of our LA's have discussed those issues with us, would that be a part of our budget? Is there anything in the general assembly line item that would give increases to our LA's? Just wanted to bring that on the floor and ask you about that. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Right, I do know that, and not speaking on behalf of the speaker, but as I recall that I think you put together a working group in recent weeks to take a look at that issue, take a look at the range of issues to see what we can do for our LA's, and there's some latitude in there. That is an issue that is actively being worked on. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Follow up Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Dollar, do you yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, and thank you Representative Dollar, I just think it's so important. Many of people who work here, especially the LA's, most of them are ladies, and many are heads of households, and so I just want to commend you, if that's going to happen, and I think that's a great thing. I know that many of our LA's are probably missing that thing. They make us look good, and they do a lot of work in our offices so, we talk about a lot of things, but our LA's, we ought to consider what they put up with, have to deal with us. And somebody said with me, Mr. Speaker, but I hope we can consider that. I see Mrs. Speaker at the back of the chamber and I hope that it's something we can do, Mr. Speaker, for our LA's. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Point well taken. Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]And I have to disagree with our colleague who said that the teachers were coming here from Pennsylvania and Ohio on the insinuation that we were offering much more money, or this, or that. They're coming here from Pennsylvania and Ohio because they're from Pennsylvania and Ohio. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Who let the gentleman yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Lucas, please state you purpose. Representative Lucas, please repeat your inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I was wondering if Representative Speciale would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Speciale, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative, would you concede that the reason they were coming here is that those states had prepared at surplus, of certified teachers, and that they were fully certified and qualified, and they were looking for good surrounding conditions to work, and that's why they came to North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I don't know if that's the case. I know if I was born and raised in Pennsylvania or Ohio, when I was through with school, I'd be getting out of there and coming down here too. North Carolina has a lot to offer. [SPEAKER CHANGES]We did. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. This former Pennsylvania resident would like to ask Representative McGrady a question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative McGrady, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Representative McGrady, and I made my comments on the budget yesterday, and this is truly not a comment, it is a question. I didn't catch, but I'm curious a lot about why it's in the budget. It's page F-11 of the budget, and it's the tuition increases for non-resident undergraduate students, and if everybody will look, it's really curious to me. But, every institution has significant tuition rate increased for undergraduates except 2, UNC Charlotte and NC State, which have none. And so all the institutions are 12.3, and some are 6, and I'm just curious. I think I can understand one, but I would love to know the answer to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I think I'm going to have to throw a line for help on this one. That was the subject of a conference, Representative Glazier, that I wasn't a part of. So if perhaps Representative Holloway could respond to that, or one of the big chairs. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to redirect my question to Representative Holloway. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Holloway, do you yield for Representative Glazier's question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I yield, and if Representative Glazier could repeat his question for me, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes, on page F-11 where we have major tuition increases for non-resident undergrads, ever institution's either increasing their tuition by 12.3%, or 6%, except 2 that have 0, NC State and UNC Charlotte and my question is why?

Representative Glazier, you know, I don't know that I can give you a good answer for that, and I don't know that I have an answer. I really don't, I don't have an answer for that. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Well, just to speak for a moment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Glazier, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I wasn't certainly going to be speaking again today, but we are jacking up the tuition at HBCU's. We a jacking it up at Chapel Hill, and at all of our other institutions. And I certainly understand, or think I understand, that there could be some limitations on ones that have very high rates. We talked about that in Committee, but a bunch that were jacking up are in the same category. And here we have simply in conference, not by the House's decision. ?? not done it on these. I'm getting some indication that maybe Representative Horn can answer, and I would refer a question to Representative Horn, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Horn, do you yield to Representative Glazier's question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I do. I yield and I'll try to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yes, sir. You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. My recollection, I asked some of those questions myself. My recollection is that the reason those two institutions were not included in that out of state tuition increase is because their constituent institution comparisons, they were much more in line with those out of state tuitions that are constituent institutions verses the other institutions that are going to endure a tuition increase. So is that clear or do you need more explanation? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. May I follow up, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Horn, do you yield to a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I'll do my best. Yes, sir. I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I think I understand that what you're saying is that the sister institutions that they are aligned with tiers. Their out of state tuition was more in line, and if we increased it at all, it would take it out of line. Is that the... [SPEAKER CHANGES]. That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Horn, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Because I believe, Chapel Hill for example, State, I suspect UNC Charlotte, among others are in that same tiered category, and had very similar, as I recall, out of state tuitions going in. Why would we send up Chapel Hill's 12.3 percent, but UNC Charlotte none? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Glazier, I attempted to answer your question the first place to the best of my recollection. I ?? kicking the can to someone else. I would not have spoken had I not been able to at least attempt to offer to answer your first question. To answer your follow up questions, in the detail in which you ask them, I'm not trying to dodge it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I appreciate you very much. Mr. Speaker, I'll just finish my comment and then we'll... [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Glazier, if you'll please yield. Representative Bryan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Might I offer some possible help to Representative Horn on this question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Glazier has the floor right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I will be glad to yield to Representative Bryan and see if he can answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Bryan, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Glazier, I don't know that I have a great answer. I did at one point in the process ask for a comparison of out of state tuitions and relative costs. I will say just as a relative comment that I know that UNC Chapel Hill for example on out of state tuition we were still funding more from the state than they were actually bringing in, whereas I think both State and UNC Charlotte, their actual cost to the state were less than the out of state charges. I'm not sure how helpful that is. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I appreciate it. One last comment, Mr. Speaker. Thank you. It is, precisely the question I raised is the kind of problems that crop up in conferences. And here, given the education budget is an issue, I certainly understand the differentiation of 12.3 and 6. But to say that two institutions that are in very similar lots with others don't have any increase, and without, sort of having an explanation is difficult, and I think folks probably ought to follow up on that. Although we're going to all get the question at our institutions that had their tuitions substantially raised, and equivalent institutions, and institutions like A&T that have an engineering program just like State and Charlotte do, This one's going to be

Think a little hard to answer and I just raised the question because I don't have the answer either. But I thank you for everybody who tried thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion Mr. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] I received numerous emails from lots of people out of my district and I'll read one. A teacher's plea against North Carolina's propose budget. Dear Representative Cunningham, I am writing to let you know how ?? the propose cuts to education are to a current public school teacher. Although I have not taught for many years, I have enough experience in my five years of teaching to see not any support of North Carolina's public education dwindle the repeated budget cuts but also a huge dive in teacher morale. As those in my profession feel continually wronged on despite the work we do despite the children of North Carolina. What is even worse for these teachers who do not receive the support is having to watch the effects on each and every one of their students. Please vote no against this propose budget and by doing so vote yes for every educator and child in our state. Sincerely, Ms Noble. I rise as I said early on I am a product of public school system. By the time I graduated high school I had attended twenty schools because I moved around quite a bit. That was my hideaway the public school system. I was very much encouraged, very much believed in, and told I could be what I wanted to be and much so I listened and I took it all in and there's a lot of kids out there today that are looking to hear that same thing from inspired teachers, inspired educators that have the passion to teach. It's a lot of little kids that go to school hungry everyday. They are less likely to learn if their stomachs are empty. But there's still some educators and some teachers that fill in the gap. We're devaluing our educators. We don't realize all that they bring. It's not a pencil, it's not just a blackboard, and it's not just the instruction for the day. It really is so much more that they bring that we are currently not recognizing. They bring sometimes stability that children don't get on their own homes when they leave school that day. Sometimes they bring just a hug that that child may not get at home and in other places and sometimes get safety and it's security that those educators provide for that eight hours or six hours whatever it is that day. That keeps that child coming back that next day. One thing in that budget that really bothers me is that we have taken away the incentives for the masters. As a professional nurse if I go back and get my Bachelor's my pay go up ten to fifteen thousand dollars. If I go back and get my Masters it goes up twenty to thirty thousand dollars a year. Now we want to tell our educators we don't want o give you anything but we'll give you five hundred dollars a year incentive to be in the top twenty-five. That's not a lot when you're looking at the cost of living increase that goes away we haven't been getting that in a long time. Now we're looking that the economy in the state that it is. The majority of educators are female in the state of North Carolina. Eighty percent only approximately seven to ten percent are minorities. So we see what we're dealing with. It's a lot.

...a lot of parents that teach our kids leave school and go to a second job. It's a lot of parents that teach our kids leave our schools and go apply for Medicaid. You may not want to believe it but it's true. We want to create a North Carolina for the future. We got to look beyond just one dollar and look at the return. Our return normally is about $17 to that $1. It's $15 to $17 if we invest early. And if we increase classroom sizes we're lost. Because our kids won't be innovators for the next coming decade. Our children going be left behind where we claim we didn't want to leave them, it's behind. And the kids behind them will be left behind if we keep doing the same thing over and over. Until we display a different behavior, we're not going to get anything different. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I sat here for a long time and didn't want to say anything, just wanted to let it go. But I'm telling you, I'm a product of public education, as are my six brothers and sisters. I've got a father who worked hard to make ends meet and didn't expect to have any handouts. So you're not alone in this boat. You think we have no compassion for teachers? I've got a child who just graduated from college and got a job. She's got a lot of friends who are looking for jobs so if you know teachers ready to give other positions, let me know. I know a bunch of college educated kids who are ready to jump into that field and start going. We can argue and fuss about increasing class size, but let me tell you, how many of us were brought up in a classroom with 35 kids and no teacher's assistants? I guarantee just about every body in this room was. And I think we're a fairly educated group. What we have done is not decimate education. What we have done is put North Carolina on the right path. I encourage you to support this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker Tillis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the House, there's been a lot of discussion and I know there's a lot of passion around this budget and the tough choices we have to make. I heard the word shameful used. I've heard a lot of words that really, I think, are disrespectful, not only to the members of this House but disrespectful to the people whose futures are hanging in the balance. This budget funds education at a higher level than its been funded before. It's a reduction in the rate of growth. But we also need to take a look at other things that we've done. Let me talk about the inconvenient truth of members who are in this General Assembly in 2009 who voted for their budget. They voted for a tax, or they voted for a tax that was effectively a teacher pay decrease. And not only did they decrease the pay of the teachers, but they decreased the pay of some of the poorest people in this State through the so-called temporary sales tax. At the same time, you were cutting at levels equal to or greater than what we're talking about. So let's be intellectually honest with ourselves. We had people talking about public school who some of their children and grandchildren go to private schools. We've had people talk about Medicaid ??, let's talk about Medicaid for a minute. Let's talk about why we're in the fiscal state that we're in now. Where was the shameful comments made about a department of HHS that the duly elected Democratic auditor said hundreds of millions of dollars had been wasted on an information technology system? Where was the comments about shame when that same auditor came back and talked about almost a billion dollars of waste and mismanagement? That money that could have been used to pay all of our State employees more, certainly our teachers more. Where were the comments then? Many of you are still in this room. I heard you speak passionately today. Where was the shame and where was the disgust with the waste of money in this State government when you were in charge? We have a very difficult situation to deal with here. And we're doing a very good job. We need to thank our teachers and stop this rhetoric to make them fear. Does anybody really think that I came down here and ran to this legislature so I could harm teachers? Does anybody really think that I came down to this legislature so we couldn't take care of the people who are helpless that need the State's help? That's absurd. And it's insulting to think that people would believe that the motivation of anybody in this Chamber, whether you're a Republican or Democrat, would be that. This is about a different means to the same ends.

What I do know is the prior means didn't work. Hundreds of millions of dollars billions of dollars documented, wasted. At the expense of people who need support. Hundreds of millions of dollars wasted at the expense of teacher pay raises . let's get serious about his and let's let people assume responsibility for the mess we are cleaning up. We have a good budget here we have a budget that none of us are completely satisfied with. We had a budget where we were to compromise with the senate to get this done, but at the end of the day this is a responsible budget. This is a budget that continues; and by the way our tax plan that effectively gave those teachers a pay cut in 2009 got a pay increase. When they go file their taxes in april of next year they actually benefit from the decisions that they have made that money is going back into the pockets of the hardworking people across the socioeconomic spectrum. This nonsense of saying the it is a tax break for the rich is disingenuous at best and dishonest at worst. We'se done a good job with tax reform we have done a good job with budget we have made the difficult decisions we have had to make and we need to move on. And if we want to continue to have the argument of the disservice to the teachers then we have to go back and revisit decision the have been made in this body that have been made in this legislature since I have been a member in 2007. And I can tell you that's not a pretty picture. we are putting this state on the right track we are making difficult decisions but we are working to get to the place where we can get every single state employee additional money, every single teacher additional money. More classroom resources, but first what we have to do is drain the swamp of bad decisions that have been made in that direction for decades I hope you will support the budget SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Hall please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Speak on the conference report SPEAKER CHANGES The Speaker has the floor. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you Mr. Chairman and of course I am speaking to the people of North Carolina obviously and as we all would want to speak to the people of North Carolina. We all campaigned on coming down here to do the right thing for the North Carolina. And we all run campaigns and you know sometimes they say that campaigning is continuous that you are always in the middle of the campaign but something you can't escape is not what your motivation is and what your intent is but at some point you become responsible for what you do. You can't keep saying I am in charge but I am working on someone elses problems. If you are in charge it's your problem. If you are in charge it is your victory. I heard the speaker say it over a year ago before a session started. The speaker said it is now our responsibility. Now he said that before we came into session this year. And so to continue to say I am looking in the rear view mirror bu I am driving I am going forward. That won't still solve out problems going forward. So I hope that you again you are going to have to carry this budget out most of you are on the budget oversight committees will receive the reports and make the decisions and help guide how it is implemented but hopefully you will come off of the continuous campaign and go ahead and assume responsibility for this budget you are going to put in place. Yes I'll oppose it and as I said before. I know it is not really the house budget I know it is not really What we sent over and I am disappointed that it is not at least that, Especially for the people of North Carolina. the whole question of motivation versus result. It is nice to have good intentions but we have to live with the results of this budget. And the result is that North Carolina is severely damaged and I hope that you will keep that in mind, as you decide how do you move North Carolina forward. Again I would ask again that you vote against this conference report. This budget is not the best we could have done for North Carolina. I chalenge you to do better and again I ask that you vote against this conference report SPEAKER CHANGES The question before the house is the for the adoption of conference report for senate bill 402. All in favor vote Aye all opposed vote No. The Clerk will opt machine record the vote.

64 having voted in the affirmative and 52 in the negative. The motion passes. Senate bill 402. The motion for adoption has passed. The Senate will be so notified. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Speaker, I was in the chamber but didn’t get here fast enough. I want to be recorded as voting yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recorded as voting aye. Representative Duane Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be recorded as no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. gentleman is recorded as voting no. Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be recorded as voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting- the gentleman is not recognized. The gentleman is recorded as voting no. Representative Hall I do believe you recorded, I would have made sure that you did, that you had already previously recorded. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well Mr. Speaker, can I be recorded as voting no a second time? I do have an I.D. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House come to order. Special messages from the Senate, clerical reading. Special messages from the Senate. Mr. Speaker it’s ordered they must be sent to the House of Representatives with the information that the Senate adopts or board of the comprises own House bill. Bill 321, a bill that will enact and require that local governments develop and maintain solid waste management plans. When the appropriate action has been taken by both chambers, the bill will be ordered and rolled respectfully sooner or later Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. The bill is ordered and rolled and sent to the governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, it’s ordered that it must be sent to the House of Representatives with the information that the Senate adopts or reported comprises on Senate bill 402, a bill to enact make base budget corporations for current operations, state parks, and ?? agency. When the appropriate action has been taken by both chambers the bill will be ordered and rolled respectfully sooner or later Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker it’s ordered that it must be sent to the House of Representatives or the information the Senate adopts the comprises on Senate bill 683, a bill to enact and create a safe harbor for victims of human trafficking. When the appropriate action has been taken by both chambers the bill will be ordered and rolled respectfully sooner or later Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker it’s ordered that it must be sent to the House of Representatives or the information the Senate adopts the comprises on House bill 493 a bill trying to enact that all ?? of Robertsville will live in occupancy pacts. When the appropriate action has been taking by both chambers, the bill will be ordered and rolled respectfully sooner or later principal clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. The bill is ordered and rolled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate committee ?? House bill 491 a bill to entitle an act the right of the Lee county sheriff to provide school resource offices to the Lee county schools. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, to be added to today’s calendar. Is there objection? So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate commits such do for House bill 675, a bill amending the laws pertaining to the regulation of pharmacy technicians, pharmacy audits, and prescriptions for schedule to substances. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, to be added to today’s calendar. So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt is right now sent forth a conference report to the press and the Senate speak of the House of Representatives comprises appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and House of Representatives it’s on House bill to try to enact improve and streamline the regulatory process, in order to stimulate job creation, to lay down regulation to make ?? statue or change it, to mend the environmental natural resources laws. The comprises recommend that Senate and House Representatives adopt this report. Comprises for the Senate: Senator Jackson chair, Brock, Brown, and Wade. Comprises for the House of Representatives: Representative Moffitt chair, Representative Murry, Millis, And Samuelson. Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, without objection, Senate bill 78 is withdrawn from the committee on finance and rereferred to the committee on rules. So ordered. Ladies and gentlemen, we are-

can you send the other matters, and we have on the calendar and we will most likely recess a little after five and that there will be a two-hour recess we will come back and around seven. house Bill three ninety two article rate and presence in his big mouth, wretched operation orders on the differences between the Senate now stretched in his own house Bill three ninety two. a built in. an act requiring county department social services to verify whether applicant for an recipient of temporary assistance for needy banners, benefits or food nutrition services businesses fleeing felon or probation or parole violator. the company 's record in the Senate now threatened to stop this report properties the Senate so it's soon conveyed his chair centers Tyson Randa ll one. properties of the house representatives works in our chair Rick, since Stevens and poor Irvine Barclay Theatre purpose from motion and to speak about the children as promotion engine light motion. the speaker make a motion to adopt the cops report [SPEAKER CHANGES]. generally recognized lady gentlemen, we had a great vote on this earlier this cop 's report further clarifies that nothing makes them feel better from the Senate what it happened was great great over there great bipartisan vote for this deal. what this bill does. if you recall, this has two purposes. one is to prevent fugitive felons and rolling probation dollars with an active arrest warrants from the law-enforcement are seeking to average the end from receiving public benefits is to make sure that our financial financial aid goes to people in the first, and it also creates a major public policy statements that will benefit our agencies work together with law enforcement in keeping us safe and out of a little bit about the the the conference report one adults, the great bipartisan vote in the Senate for the video with with the boat. the arrest warrants background status checks, as well as the drug testing for work first benefits certain work first benefits, the conference Board further clarifies that the that the fingerprint analysis and backgrounds are optional. it's been requested. I write that into the bill would make those in their. we've created some concerns about paying for this week we clarified that the counties are not bearing the cost of this is totally in response to the questions raised and ask your support is imprinted with major purpose of sponsor question presented artist Joan and you start menu picture. please explain the drug testing part is a workforce am reading this, and I apologize from this is the cost of the drug testing as possible. individual tested this one question, but the thing is very ambiguous with the departments are required to access the screen. each applicant that if the recipient workforce, assistant management. department reasonably suspect has engaged in legal use of installed substance can you please explain to me what reasonably suspects, means, and we have clarification, we certainly do in order to make that comport with the wall originals visit and if I will already defer to my colleague, I represent Stevens specifically glad from a speaker bracket. yes,Rosetta Stevens, so I do is respond to the question, they would always respond to questioning and I was quite

Further because what did happen in the Senate, they had a separate drug testing bill and as we looked at that drug testing bill and our judiciary committee we realized you can’t unilaterally test everyone you have to have some reasonable suspicion. So in as much as they were already looking at criminal records, we have basically three, four grounds for reasonable suspicion. I don’t know if you’re looking at the final bill but it would be the version I’m looking at is on page 5 under subsection G. Reasonable suspicion is something shows up in your criminal record check within the three year period that raises their suspicion, a qualified substance abuse professional, and this is the only means they use right now is a tool in which they ask a series of questions about your alcohol, your drug use, how it affects your abilities to do things. That’s something the department has been already doing in differing people. The third thing was a springing tool that’s related to that but is developed by the Social Services Commission and part of that includes the physical appearance of the person as they’re with you. So those are the things under subsection G that are reasonable suspicion. So it is clearly defined. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the only people that are required for a drug test is the people who are going under this work first program not just unilaterally everybody that’s getting assistance? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Correct [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] First to see if Representative Stevens would yield for a question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens does the lady yield [SPEAKER CHANGES]I will [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker and Representative. I’m trying to look at the text and I understand where you’ve put in the provision that nothing in this section requires fingerprints to be taken of every applicant for recipient of a program for public assistance which I think is good. My question is, to clarify, as I still read the document based on rules and regulations, if you’re requiring that there be a criminal record check in section 1 in order to determine whether someone’s the fleeing felon or the other status which essentially means you’re requiring a record check on everyone because you don’t know unless you have a specific reason to know this person. You generally don’t know till you do the record check. The record check as I understand it, depending on what record check you’re seeking, some would not require you to have fingerprints at all other record checks would. Does this bill still leave it now in a sense optional depending on what record check is being sought that everyone could be fingerprinted? You sort of have the option of the DSS or the state, how are we leaving it because it seems to me still very much in doubt except that that is discretionary now as opposed to mandatory but it could easily be made mandatory. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Glazier. This was the request of some of the specific departments of Social Services who would like this option so that they could look, particularly if you’re in a border county whether you’ve got someone that’s fleeing from Virginia, Tennessee, South Carolina, the option to be able to request those fingerprints. Most departments of Social Services don’t want it, did not plan to use it, several people raised the very issue you did is why is it even in there. But it’s because we are so close on some borders to be able to check people who perhaps are fleeing felons and I can defer to Representative Arp but I think he had that specific question in his county of wanting to perhaps have access to the fingerprints. There is money built into the budget to interface with the state system so they can do a state record check at no cost. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I think on the basis of that answer before I speak on the bill I probably want to follow up with a question to Representative Arp. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative. I think I understand based on what Representative Stevens said that some counties may need and want to require fingerprinting of their applicants in order to then run specific record checks. Is that accurate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The department, the Social Service Commission will develop rules and protocols to guide the counties in that respect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative. So it is possible based on the way this bill is set up and the rules that the commission develops that counties either all or some could in fact be requiring fingerprints of applicants. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me

By reading what the federal rules, in anticipation, suggest. And you may have read this as well. Have you read- [Speaker Changes}Probably, only enough to be dangerous. [Speaker Changes] What is does is, the federal rules say that we are proposing the primary responsibility for verifying a fleeing felon arrest stat with the state agency and not the household. So there is a verification duty incumbent upon the state and this is what the federal rules suggest that says there are three basic ways a state agency may become aware a households potential fleeing felon or parole status. It says through a statement by the household, such is a checking off of a block on an applicant is what we have, through data match with the FBI’s database, NCIC, or another database of outstanding arrest warrants. Well that database check is a fingerprint database check. And so it anticipates that. And in the third thing, it says through a law enforcement officer who specifically asks about a certain person. The agency may become aware of that through the law enforcement request. In our bill, in order to limit the costs into counties, what we said is to the extent of available state resources, they’re required to check that. That state database is what we control. It does not require them to go beyond that. However what we have to understand is that not all outstanding arrest warrants reside in our state databases. For instance and a very instance that happened in our county, we had someone from New York who was a convicted felon came down to North Carolina to our county to seek aid.Those types are not necessarily caught is our state warrant system. So the fingerprint check provides an additional tool anticipated by the federal law to ascertain the status of this because we are prohibited from giving out aid, regardless of whether they are a fleeing felon from Tennessee or North Carolina. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. Speaker of the bill ?? The gentlemen recognized to debate the bill. Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [ Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker inquired a chair [Speaker Changes] ?? this inquiry? [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, its 5 and you indicate we will come back and complete the agenda. Can this be carried over to 5, representative ?? the court. [Speaker Changes] I didn’t say a little after 5, and we’re going to see if we can dispose of this cause I’m afraid if we don’t we will revisit every comment that will be made two hours from now. So if we can dispose of this it will be the preference of the chair. [Speaker Changes] The gentlemen may state his inquiry [Speaker Changes] Is the cue correct? [Speaker Changes]The cue is two people wishing to speak on the bill. One has the floor at this time. Representative Glazier, will recognize the debate of the bill or the conference report. [Speaker Changes] Thank you. Mr. President. I voted for the original bill because I do believe that the narrow problem attempting to be solved was the issue to comply with federal law of looking at fleeing felons and people who are probation or parole violators. Well we of course expanded in the conference report, not based on what was done but what was based on; done in the senate to the drug testing provisions. And my first objection to the bill, and I think there was some really good work done on eliminating what were very, I think questionable initial drug testing provisions. But we use a phrase in here and I remember Representative ?? saying a month ago in a very different context that words matter and in the law that we’re creating they really do. And so we say in here the standard of which we are going to test is reasonable suspicion. Well the problem with that for me is, that isn’t why we read the law. The skinner opinion on drug testing says reasonable articulable suspicion based on, normally based on probable cause and a warrant. Now there is for those in the law a canyon of difference between reasonable suspicion and probable cause would be sufficient for a warrant. Those are not the same terms. They do not have the same 4th amendment connotation. And I think there is a real difference. Probable cause means probable cause to believe that this person in front of

if it's an offender probable cause has committed the crime, enough that I can get an indictment, and move that person to trial. Reasonable suspicion may be I'm unsure, they're casing a joint and I'm just not sure, so the whole notion comes from we can make temporary detentions of them for investigative purpose, but we have no basis to arrest them, or move against them as probable cause would give us. And so, it may seem like it's a quivel over words, but I think it's a very big quivel, because I think probable cause is the standard that meets the 4th Amendment requirement here, and reasonable suspicion in and of itself does not. And for that reason on the drug testing, I will be voting no because I think we are creating a unconstitutional standard that will be struck down on that basis. My reason for voting no though gets to the finger prints. Once again, I don't disagree that there's multiple ways to finding someone who's a fleeing felon, or probation or parole violator. One way is clearly to know or have information that's been given to you by a law enforcement officer. Another is because someone may actually check it off, and indicate, and that's great. And other ways may be investigations by the department, or it may be knowledge within the department from this person previously having applied and been found to be. But when we say that one of the basis, just because it's allowable in a federal reg. somewhere, someway, is that North Carolina is now going to move to the potential in this bill, that we would order through regulation or otherwise, on a county by county basis, the finger printing of all applicants in order to catch the 1% or less that are doing this, I suspect, but to catch that we're going to finger print all applicants for these benefits, we move into a very different era. The only crime these people have mostly committed is being poor, and they're seeking benefits, and some are doing it illegally, and I agree. The vast majority are not. And we have never, to my knowledge in this state, ever used the finger print process outside the criminal justice process to finger print innocent people across the board because we suspect a couple of them may be problematic. We have I think, when we pass this bill with that in place, move to an entirely new era where the scourge of poverty takes on even a new meaning. It is hard enough, I think, with the stigma of losing your job, and having to apply for government benefits, and standing in the line, and knowing you can't provide for your family, but to then having to go through the humiliation of having yourself finger printed like your a common criminal, not that you've done anything wrong, but that you're just applying for benefits because we think a small percentage we need to catch, is going after a problem that needs a scalpel with a sledge hammer. Or as I said the other day, in this case, taking a bazooka to a fist fight. And, it is wrong for our citizens. There are so many people in this state suffering from the scourge of poverty that we add to the humiliation in doing this. I understand exactly what Representative Arp is trying to get at, and I don't disagree, that's why I voted for you bill initially, but this bill, as it's come back is now going to create a burden on so many innocent people that there has got to be a better way to do this, and save their dignity, and save, what I believe, is the basic essential view of the state ought to do, which is to alleviate human suffering where ever possible, and we will be inflicting it with this. Because I think that the costs out way the benefits, I cannot vote for this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To see if Representative Glazier would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Certainly, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Glazier, as an innocent citizen that I'm sure you are, have you on occasion had to be finger printed? [SPEAKER CHANGES]In my life I have never had to be finger printed. I agreed to it one time, well I take that back. I think the bar exam may have been the only time that we had to do it. But, let me respond to this in a second way Representative Stevens, I did that, but I made the choice, right? The choice to enter that profession, and the choice knowing that that was part of the application process to do it. I didn't have to become a lawyer

People didn’t make a choice to be poor and they didn’t make a choice that they needed the benefits; they have to do it to survive. There is a difference between a lawyer who is about to become a practicing lawyer, in some cases an unemployed one, doing it when they graduate law school as part of their career path and someone walking in who has lost their job, may be losing their children, and has certainly lost their dignity, to have to say you are going to be fingerprinted, all of you. That’s just very different. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, with five lights on I think we’re going to take the Floyd motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will come back and representatives vote. We are going to recess. We will do notices and announcements before we do that. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Two reasons. One, I ask to be recorded as yes on Senate Bill 480. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting yes on 480. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the Rules Committee will meet five minutes after we go into recess, to finish our business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Republicans will caucus at 6:00 in Room 544. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. Ladies and gentlemen, we will stand in recess, subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, and appointment of conferees and modifications to the calendar. We will reconvene at 7:00 p.m. The House is in recess.