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 | May 7, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

Our kind Father in heaven, we pause before the beginning of this General Assembly session with the desire to thank Thee, Father, for the many blessings that Thou has bestowed upon us. We thank Thee for the wonderful freedom and liberty that we enjoy in America. We're grateful individually and collectively for the opportunity that we have to come together here and to represent the people of North Carolina. We're also thankful, Father, for the work of others in this Assembly and around these buildings. We thank Thee for the good work of the Sergeant at Arms and his staff. We're grateful for the dedication of the Principle Clerk and her staff to serve this legislative body. We thank Thee also, Father, for the custodians and the others who care for this building, and those who care for the grounds and keep the building and the grounds in such good condition. We thank Thee for each representative here today. And Father we ask that Thou would see fit to bless us with the necessary wisdom and discernment to make decisions that will benefit the people of North Carolina and be pleasing in Thy sight. For this, I pray for in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen. [reciting Pledge of Allegiance] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the journal for Monday May the 6th 2013 has been examined and found to be correct. Move to approve it as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the journal for May the 6th be approved as written. All those in favor say 'aye'. All opposed say 'no'. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, or papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House. Ratification of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Enrolling clerk reports the following resolutions ratified and properly enrolled. Secretary of State Joint Resolution 35, Joint Resolution honoring the life of member Edward "Ed" Walker Jones, former member of the General Assembly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chaptered bills be noted. Ladies and gentlemen, without objection Rule 12D is suspended. Is there objection? So ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion pertaining to today's Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, this is a motion to remove two bills from the Calendar. Members, on page two of your Calendar, House Bills 357 and 358 at the request of the bills' sponsors, move that those bills be removed from today's Calendar and calendared for tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Mr. Speaker, one additional motion pertaining to the Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, House Bill 692 which is on page three of the members' Calendar, same motion, that that bill be removed from today's Calendar and calendared for tomorrow also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And one more, and 635-- Senate Bill 635, which is on page three, also move that that bill be removed from today's Calendar and calendared for tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And one additional motion. Apparently Wednesday's gonna be popular with everyone. House Bill 700 on page three of the Calendar-- move that that bill be removed from today's Calendar and calendared for tomorrow also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Mr. Speaker, if I could be recognized for a re-referral. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, House Bill 743, short title UI Laws Administrative Changes, move that that bill be removed from the Committee on Finance-- excuse me, removed from the Committee on Commerce and referred to the Committee on Finance today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Reports of standing committees and permanent subcommittees. Representatives Brawley and Iler are recognized to send forth committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley and Iler for Transportation Committee, House Bill 665...

to one source of the Stevens timetable in our city hall for higher education, steel and the whole scenario stable and read zero in recorded a tiled elder inference's mail, ?? U.N. statement that strike the referral governments beyond all the recurrence in time since person solid offer hasn't won a white part only visit: Intel's for health and human services now spilling time as long as there's any stable of a ceremony reported issues of the BLK rain forests in a series of radio housing country on a section and three by a panel that was the sentimentalism racial mail be a substitute bill, resolved on cable time person was recognizing for the one who only medicine and without permission to house table-the-house resolution on the life of me at all yet know what I'm missing is the person at the database of similar so steeply time building, a bill and Judy, I'm acting said that the facts about the event was all that, letters to the people and by the state payroll deduction utilities of ?? house bill and statement that the evidence, and stable, usa's times the past year dates 21 -pounder person not as recognize support committee reportedly chimes in the winter meeting house bill 609 of the defense of the defendants acted as if exception of some of them as if the Serbs to double the ?? a subsidy number $2.00 a substitute one table counter Astros adequate time base of 2% of a committee China me, active education happens to them, shown that they have warranted education center 8:34 at one-time live and on the boards of education commission of professors visit is available at the protections of the better protected once again for tests to see how the insert times and intercepted by many of them, activity-ended as the certain time buyers base station the seven-cent-17, active and stacked stemming and the energy savings contracts for the film times the rate monitor for all his 1% of 43 times as it is able to start for Netware four eggs and I'm resending, and user will finance cinema 27th of the connectivity and about, and services times of that market that is Mr. For a popup have any evidence in the Vanguard of an expensive Federal finance the 77,000 of them, and that you this is a knockout that being a fact of the process is certain that the comets ?? resort for waste of time as of Monday Centers and the whole residence and contact and share this year is attitudes and the currencies of the galleries Wayne County GOP first time last year and so on and went on to the board member table over there and at least an hour time a taste of the issues also in china's extended currencies of the dates and Dr. Rebekah Maclean certified nurse midwife time if you're under statewide program is Carolina university for certain scenarios or rented off the time ?? ?? ?? ……………

Calendar House bill 149, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate committee substitute for House bill 149, a bill to entitle an act to make it a criminal offense to fail to report the disappearance of a child to law enforcement, to increase the criminal penalty for concealing the death of a child, to increase the penalty for making false, misleading or unfounded report to a law enforcement agency or officer for the purposes of interfering or obstructing the investigation involving a missing child or victim of a class a, b1, b2, or c felony and make it a class 1 misdemeanor for a persons fails to report the abuse, neglect, dependency, or death due to maltreatment of a juvenile or prevent another person from making such report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Hastings, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion Mr. Speaker, and to briefly debate the Senate committee substitute- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is that the House do concur with the Senate committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'll be very brief. And I just wanted to recollect for just a moment. I went back in the email database and noticed that the first contact with our staff on this bill was July 28th, 2011. During that course, Mr. Speaker, I wanted to especially thank Representatives Tim Moore and John Blust, they were originally on the bill last biennium and graciously gave up their spot to allow freshmen to be part of the bill, Mr. Speaker. And finally, I just wanted to say Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the staff, the committee chairs, especially the judiciary committee chairs in the House and the Senate, the House and Senate members, and all who helped with this bill. This is a bipartisan bill Mr. Speaker, and I believe that it's worthy of the Governor's signature. Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion to concur? If not, the question before the House is concurrence in the motion, is concurrence in the Senate committee substitute for House bill 149. 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. 111 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House has concurred in the Senate committee substitute for House bill 149, the bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. House resolution, and ladies and gentlemen, there is a House resolution on page 3 of the calendar that without objection, we will move forward to- but before we read it in, Rep. Fisher, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I failed to cast my vote, and would like to be recorded as voting "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be reported as voted "aye" on the motion to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Terry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To vote on 149, "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting "aye" on the motion to concur. Rep. Holloway, please state your purpose. To remove your three ring binder. Ladies and gentlemen, just by way of, as a courtesy to the members, the chair will remind members that all those wishing to record, please do so. If the Chair says that, you can be certain at least one person has not recorded. So the Chair would ask, just so that everybody- we can make best use of our time particularly as we get into this part of the session where seconds matter. Please take a look at that so we don't have to take time recording votes after the voting has been locked. The Chair will otherwise announce every instance where we see someone seated at the desk who has not recorded. Now we're going to move to House joint resolution 514, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House joint resolution 514, a joint resolution honoring the life and memory of William P. Cunningham, former member of the General Assembly. The House resolves, the Senate concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Cunningham, does the lady wish the resolution read in its entirety? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Speaker, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whereas William P. Cunningham was born in Union county on November 7, 1929, to John Wallace and ?? Patterson, whereas P. Cunningham graduated from Winchester

…School in 1945 and earned a Bachelor of Arts degree in business law from Johnson C. Smith University in 1956; and whereas, Pete Cunningham served in two branches of the United States military, joining the Army as a teenager where he served as a member of the Third Battalion 505th Parachute Infantry Regiment of the 82nd Airborne Division and enlisting in the Navy in 1966 where he served as a Radioman 1st Class aboard the USS Barracuda stationed in Charleston, South Carolina; and whereas, upon his retirement from the military in 1986, Pete Cunningham moved to Charlotte where he took on a number of business ventures including serving as president and co-owner of a personnel agency known as Cunningham and Hatchett Associates; sole proprietor of the Historic Excelsior Club from 1988 to 2006, and as a real estate investor; and whereas, Pete Cunningham served his community in many worthwhile capacities and was active in many organizations including the Charlotte Business League, Black Political Caucus of Charlotte-Mecklenburg, Veterans of Foreign Wars, and the NAACP of which he was a life member; and whereas, Pete Cunningham was concerned about the welfare of children in his community taking an active role with the Anita Stroud Foundation which provides educational, motivational, and enrichment programs to children in the Mecklenburg County area and founding the Excelsior Club Humanity Organization, E.C.H.O., which was established to assist the Anita Stroud Foundation's school tutorial program; and whereas, Pete Cunningham served with honor and distinction in the General Assembly as a member of the House of Representatives from 1987 through 2007 during which time he was the longest serving member of the Mecklenburg-Charlotte delegation; and whereas, during his tenure in the General Assembly, Pete Cunningham served as Minority Whip from 1995 to 1996, and as an ex officio member of the – of most of the standing and permanent committees from 2001 through 2007, as a member of the Legislative Black Caucus; and whereas, Pete Cunningham aided Governors James B. Hunt, Jr. and Michael F. Easley with increasing diversity in the State's hiring practices; and whereas, Pete Cunningham's earned many awards and recognitions during his lifetime including the Silver Award from the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Certificate of Appreciation Award from the Anita Stroud Foundation, Certificate of Appreciation from Feed the Children, the Leadership and Public Service Award from North Carolina A&T State University, the Distinguished Service Award from the North Carolina Council on Sickle Cell Syndrome, the Benevolent Advocate of Healthcare Award from the Old North State Medical Society, and the Pinnacle Award from the Black Political Caucus of Charlotte-Mecklenburg; and whereas, Pete Cunningham was a member of First Baptist Church-West of Charlotte where he served on the Board of Directors; and whereas, Pete Cunningham died on December 21, 2010, at the age of 81; and whereas, prior to his death, Pete Cunningham lost two of his sons, Gary Cunningham and Kenneth Cunningham; and whereas, Pete Cunningham is survived by his wife, Carla Rorie Cunningham; his children, William "Ronnie" Cunningham, Peter Cunningham, and Khristina Cunningham; two step-children, KaMesha Rorie and Kyle Rorie; 11 grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren; Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: Section 1, The General Assembly honors the memory of William "Pete" Cunningham and expresses the appreciation of the citizens of this State for the service he rendered his community, State, and nation; Section 2, The General Assembly extends its sympathy to the family of William "Pete" Cunningham for the loss of a beloved family member; Section 3, The Secretary of State shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the family of William "Pete" Cunningham; Section 4, this resolution is effective upon ratification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This has been a long time coming. Like the resolution said, he died in 2010, and just all happened I am here and found out ?? I've been doing. So it is the purpose for me being here. It is difficult for me…

...to condense Representative Cunningham's service into just a few words. However, I will try. What I will share with you is he grew up poor, and fatherless. Although I am quite a few years younger than he, we have a lot in common. We were survivors of where we come from. I grew up poor; he grew up poor. He grew up fatherless; I grew up fatherless. And almost motherless, as well. But we made it out of financial poverty by the way of education. I met Representative Cunningham in 1996. He was working on a project with the Anita Stroud Foundation, and I was a nurse at the time; had been for quite a while. And, he was working trying to raise money for a paralyzed young boy who had broke [sic] his neck playing football for West Charlotte High School. He was paralyzed from the neck down, he couldn't move himself around; his mother needed a lift to move him from his bed to his wheelchair. So, the Anita Stroud Foundation got together and raised the money for that. In addition, they needed a van to transport this individual, because he was a big guy, probably close to 300 pounds, and he wasn't easy to move around. So they got together and they raised the money to purchase a van to take him places so he wasn't confined to his home. And I consulted with him, and we got all that done. And he was known to work on several projects at one time. When Hurricane Katrina hit, that was another big event that had came [sic] about. And, we got together, and we raised almost 50 to 60 thousand dollars for the Katrina victims and he was the spearhead behind it. And lots of that money came to the Black Legislative Caucus here, because that's what he wanted to do with it. And some of it stayed in the community helping people that were displaced by the hurricane to start their lives over. He was a very big part of that. Representative Cunningham's conversations were never about people or their misdeeds, but were always about how he could help others. He did not waste his time hurting anyone. He spent his life helping others. About two months prior to him passing, I was on my way, putting my clothes on, going out the door to check on my mother, and he was a very independent and a proud man. And, he said, wait a minute, I want to talk to you about something. I said, well, you know, okay. And then he said, well, no go ahead, because my mother was sick at the time. He said, go ahead, I'll be all right; we'll talk about it when you come back. And I said, no, sat down and then I said we can talk about it now. And he looked at me and he said I'm not gonna [sic] be here in two months. He said approximately two months. He said I know I'm not gonna be here. And he said I want you to know right now, you've been a good wife to me and I love you. And I told him--I looked at him--and I knew he knew what he was talking about when he said it. And I looked at him and I told him the same thing; you've been a good husband to me, and I love you too. And I went on to take care of my mother. But I knew he knew exactly what he was talking about. You know, when the Spirit comes, it's no doubt in [sic] what you hear and what you feel. It will speak to you. So I knew he knew. So, after he told me that, of course I was worried about it all day but you know God--God has a way of fixing things. My life wasn't supposed to stop when he stopped, my life was supposed to pick up and move on. And, he gave me what I needed while he was here to do that. And that's why I'm here today. I say this to each of you that serve in this chamber, take the time to express daily to the most important people in your life that you love them. Pete called me every night while he was in the General Assembly. I knew that phone was gonna [sic] ring. Every night he called me, and let me know, everything all right, and am I all right. And he did that before he was my husband. After his passing, strangers approached me in public places and they would ask me was I his daughter. [laughter] And I would say, no, I'm his widow. And then they would go on to say, well, you know he helped me do this and he helped me do that, and I was really surprised. Because I didn't come down here that often--[end of data...]

But it was the little things that he did for common people. And they would walk up to me, and I didn't know who they was. I could be in the post office, I could be in the grocery store, and they would just walk up to me and say, "Are you so and so? Well, I remember your husband helped me do this." And I say, "Really"? And they say, "Yeah." Man, I swear that was good. He did a lot for people. A lot for average people from right up here in Raleigh. And I think sometimes we don't realize the impact we have on people's lives back home, but it's huge and people don't forget. He loved his family. He gave to many. He treasured his service, and he worshipped God until his eyes were closed. I would close with one of his favorite poems. "Anyway" is the title, "People are unreasonable, illogical, and self-centered. Love them anyway. If you do good, people will accuse you of selfish ulterior motives. Do good anyway. If you are successful, you will win false friends, and true enemies. Succeed anyway. The good you do today, will be forgotten tomorrow. Do good anyway. Honesty and frankness makes you vulnerable. Be honest and frank anyway. The biggest man with the biggest ideas can be shot down by the smallest men with the smallest minds. Think big anyway. People favor underdogs, but follow only top dogs. Fight for some underdogs anyway. What you spend your years building maybe destroyed overnight. Build anyway. People really need help, but may attack you if you help them. Help people anyway. Give the world the best you have, and you'll be kicked in the teeth. Give the world the best you've got anyway." Mr. Speaker, I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative of Farmer-Butterfield, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ladies recognize to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to tell you that I first met Pete Cunningham in Charlotte at the Excelsior Club, late 80s in my day. I befriended him and he befriended me when I came to the legislature. But prior to that time, I met his date, Carla Cunningham at the Excelsior Club. He was telling me once when I was asked to run for Secretary of the Black Caucus, and I said, "Why do they want a woman to run for the Secretary of the Black Caucus? Let the man do it." He said, "Jean, opportunities come seldom. You better take this one from Wayne Wright since he wants you to be his secretary." So I took that role, and I indeed learned a lot about the Legislative Black Caucus, and how the legislative process works. There was another occasion when Pete Cunningham came to me and he said, "I want you to be on my military committee." And he said, "I served in the Navy, and I served in the Army and I was a paratrooper. You need to broaden your scope Jean and not just ?? or helping human services. You don't need to be a one issue person. You need to be a broad individual in legislature. Learn all you can. So I indeed served on his legislative committee. Then, he was a floater going from many committees as a floater. And I loved to see him come into the meetings. Especially when I had a bill because I knew that would increase my numbers and get my bill passed. And finally, he was special assistant to the Speaker when I came. And I used to constantly ask, "Pete, what is your role in special assistant to the Speaker"? He would never answer that question. To this day I never understood, or knew what a his role was as of a special assistant to the Govern, I mean to the Speaker. But he felt that it was very important, and I did too.

I was especially impressed by the fact that Pete increased the diversity in the state hiring practices with my governor, Jim Hunt. And finally, my sister, who was a victim of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans; Carla talked about the fact that him and several of his friends donated funds for the victims of Hurricane Katrina. Well indeed, my sister was a beneficiary of those donations that they made. He finally got to meet her and she was able to thank him personally. So I say to you, Pete Cunningham put his money where is mouth was. He loved his family, his Children, his grandchildren, and his great grands. And I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Robert Brawley , please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, it was my pleasure to serve with Representative Cunningham. You heard the comments about him, that poem by Representative Cunningham, I think, describes Pete to the 'T'. He was caring. He was concerned. He was enthusiastic and he was knowledgeable. It was a real pleasure to serve with him, debate, discuss issues. Sometimes he saw my point of view, sometimes I saw his, but we enjoyed the exchanges. I am proud to stand in support of Representative Cunningham and say that I think if you'd have gotten to know him, you'd know he was the kind of legislator that we would all like to be. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Earle, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and Members, I want to start off by saying that I can't I've always enjoyed serving with Representative Cunningham. I was the first black female to serve in this legislature from Mecklenburg County and Pete never let me forget that he was my senor and that I should be looking up to him. He never, ever allowed me to forget that. And on many occasions we had a back and forth because I didn't come to him and ask his opinion before I made a move. Also, as you well see, Representative Cunningham liked younger ladies. I was out with two of our colleagues, Senator Danley and Jim Richardson, who had served in this body, and Pete. We had been to an event. Pete and I were walking together, kind of hugging each other, and the two behind us said, "Oh, you two make such a nice looking couple." I said, "No, I'm too old for Representative Cunningham." So that got to be a joke for a while, that I was too old for Cunningham. But in all seriousness, Representative Cunningham really enjoyed serving his constituents and serving in this institution. He respected the institution and he was well respected here. He would always get up, and talk, and tell about his humble background. He talked about being raised by a single mother, and all that came with being raised in Union County. He was very well respected in Mecklenburg. In fact, when I would go out with Pete and Senator Danley, everybody recognized them. As long as I've been serving, sometimes I'm wondering if people know that I'm still here. But representative Cunningham and Senator Danley, everybody recognized them right away and knew that they were serving. It was a pleasure serving with him. We did come to be much better friends and I guess at some point the started respecting my ability and…

On that i can make some decisions and I did kind of humor him on some points and issues where I would go and ask him for his opinion because i know that he would make a difference in how he responded or how he voted on my bills. So I would on occasion go in and ask for his opinion on something. Carla and I got to be close friends and in fact she worked as my campaign manager. I got to ??. I was there, I got to know an other side of him. ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Adams, state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, to speak briefly on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I guess where you start out in life, doesn't have to determine where you end up or how far you can go. Pete Cunningham was an example of that. He was very proud of the fact that he had humble beginnings. He would tell us many times on the floor about his mother, about the fact that he was poor. He would even say from time to time that he was even on welfare. He wasn't ashamed of that. He was proud of the journey he had traveled and how far he had come. He was a dapper, well dressed gentleman. He always had information for you whether you wanted it or not, and representative Earle, he pretty much treated me the same way, and I wasn't from Meklenburg. I was very pleased to serve with him, he was a very knowledgeable person. He was proud of the work that he was doing here. We fussed a lot. We didn't always agree, but we certainly agreed to disagree and we respected each other for that. I think he thought i talked a little bit too much. He may have told me that a time or two. But one of the things that I do remember, and representative Cunningham, Carla Cunningham, helped me to remember that for just a moment, the fact that he did support, not only the legislative black caucus but the foundation, and did some great work in Charlotte to help people who were victimized by the hurricanes, and not only helped people in the state but, victims elsewhere. I served on a couple committees with him and I was here as well as he was a floater and he helped me get a few bills through as well. I am privileged to stand in support of this resolution today, he was a fine gentleman. I admired his intellect, and the commitment that he mad to this general assembly and i commend this resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, I have fond memories of working with representative Pete Cunningham on this floor, and in committees and particularly the house finance committee. We always sat right down from one another. I always appreciated, always did both in that committee and here on the house floor, that representative Cunningham would speak a lot about the perspective of, from the perspective of, and on behalf of the working families and working people of North Carolina. And as has already been indicated, he was open in telling people about his roots, and how he came up the hard way, and he reminded all of us that he grew up in a segregationist Union county, and that it was not an easy place to grow up as a young African American. He was on point time and time again. My favorite story was when he and I were debating, or discussing, I think we were more discussing than debating, he thought we were debating the one aspect of the Bill Lee Act, which those of you that have been around a while know, it was the first great business incentive program. Again as was clear as we looked at the Bill Lee Act, it provided more benefits to areas like Meklenburg county, Durham county, than it did to the small counties, that was one of the problems in the way it was structured, and I was pointing it out and representative Cunningham was upset with me because he thought I was not aware of the fact that there were zones of poverty within counties, and I think representative Michaux remembers this conversation we had, and in fact that we had been working to put into the bill that... (speech ends)

zones of poverty within the major metropolitan areas including Zonesman, Greensboro, Winston, it said they would be exempted from the general rules for the metropolitan area. And once he got frustrated with those points so he just turned to me and said the proffessor doesnt really know what hes talking about. And I always just remember that line and appreciate it. I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney please state your purposes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Go straight to the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The speaker wants to go straight to the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, I rised to make a few comments about my friend Pete Cunningham. When I first came here ten years ago Pete was in my delegation, and I didnt really know Pete personally other than to have seen him at events and around Charlotte. But he came over to my office and at that time when you were first elected you were given the office of the person that was going out. And as a freshmen I was given the office of the person seat, I was at here office and she was giving preperations. She had one of the big rooms by the apprepiations meeting room and the first person that came in and shot straight and honest with me was Pete. He walked and said well how you doing in here and I said well nice its big, but Im learning my way. He said well dont get used to it because you wont be in here but maybe a week. I relly appreciated that, and true to what Pete said that I was moved the next week to the office that I currently have, and its a wonderful location. But if its anything that I could sum up about Pete,I did serve up hi request that I would meet up with a strong foundation board, and I got to really see him at his best, and small meetings at the board. And really digging down deep to find the money, and where is it going to come from, and we as board members werent always able to raise it. Pete always found that money to be there because that money was not going to anybody but young people, and it was a passion of his. So I would sum up about Pete Cunningham, and we can all aspire to have these things said about us, he was passionate, about his service community, family, and his country. He was compassionate about people who werent upmost fortunate as he was.But he respected those who had much, and lost of all he was loyal. He was loyal to the causes that he stood for, he was represented up here, and if he was your friend, he was loyal. I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Speciale please state your purpose. [SPEAkER CHANGE] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Pete Cunningham, oh boy, what can you say about a good guy that hadnt already been said. But let me tell you how I came to really know Pete, when Pete Got here, Jim Richardson and I had been here for a while and Pete sat right between us. And Pete would sit where Speciale was sitting and Jim Richardson would be on the other side. That was the first year and then we came back the second session and Pete had found his old spot at that time. He knew he was cathing on to what was going on and introduced a bill and I really dont remember but I can go back and tell you what the bill was, it really dont make any difference. Pete introduced this bill, it got up to the committee, and it hit the floor. Pete got up to argue on the bill, and he started arguing on the bill. And he talked for five minutes on the bill, then he talked another five minutes on the bill, and then he talked for a third five minutes on the bill. Then something hit me and Jim Richardson on the head at the time. Jim looked at me then I looked at Jim, then Jim came around and said is he doing what I think he is doing. I said that it sounds like it to me. He was talking against his own bill. He had gotten so wrapped up in it that he had gotten so off course on that bill. Well I reached over and grabbed his coattail and said Pete you talking against your bill, he looked at me and said,

Folks please pass my bill, and sat down. And the bill, the bill got passed. Now that really, Pete was an individual that you could have a lot of fun with. But Pete was a very serious individual. The Anita Strive Foundation I know was one of his big things because he always talked about Anita Strive Foundation and what it could do for the kids that he was trying to help. Pete also was an astute business man, and the reason I know that is because my law firm one time represented Pete in a couple transactions. And we know how Pete came out on those transactions. But the other thing about it was Pete, You know Pete owned the Excelsior Club, the historic Excelsior Club in Charlotte. And legislature black caucus was going to have a meeting in Charlotte one weekend. One weekend, and Pete invited us to come to the Excelsior Club. Well we said well we'll go down there and we'll help the brother out. We'll show up and lend his establishment a degree of glory. Legislative black caucus is coming to him. We figured that ok we're going to grace his establishment with out presence and that Pete would like it so much that we wouldn't have to pay for anything. Well you can imagine when the bill came, what we said. Pete said well you know I'm in business, I gotta make a living. But the other thing about Pete is that when you were his friend, you got to be his friend, you were his friend for life. And I say that because I know he stuck by Jim Black in spite of all the trouble that Jim Black got into. The one friend that Jim Black could count on was Pete Cunningham. Pete worked even to the point that he would ask members, unabashedly ask members to write Jim a letter while he was in prison and that type of thing. So when he got to be your friend That was it. I'm reminded, Pete reminds me of two things. There's a little passage from Dante's Inferno that speaks well of Pete. It says the hottest places in Hell are reserved for those who take a position of neutrality in the face of a moral crisis. Pete never took a position of neutrality. You know where he stood. Whether you liked where he stood. Whether you didn't like where he stood, he always took that position. The other one is my favorite, which I think epitomizes the life that Pete lived. It's Dean Alfanses creed. It goes like this: I seek opportunity not security. I do not wish to be a kept citizen, humbled and dulled by having the State look after me. I want to take the calculated risk to dream and to build, to fail and to succeed. It is my heritage to stand erect, proud and unafraid. To think and act for myself. To never cower before any master, nor bend to any threat. This I stand here, here I stand, I can do no other. Pete Cunningham: we miss you, but we relish in the glory that you left us. I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Joint Resolution 514 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock machine, record the vote. 119 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, House Resolution 514 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House resolves, the Senate Concurring [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Joint Resolution 514 on its third reading. All in favor vote aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Resolution 514 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, on motion of Representative Carla Cunningham, all the Mecklenburg delegation, and the members of this

Chamber. The Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Kamisha Small’s daughter and Valerie Rustin, long time assistant to Pete Cunningham. Please stand and let us welcome you. House Resolution 696 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Resolution 696. House Resolution ?? Lewis and Mattie Thornburg while observing the 60th anniversary of Thorlo the company they founded, the House resolves. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Turner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To request the Resolution be read in its entirety. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The resolution will be read in its entirety. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whereas Thorlo was founded in 1953 by Lewis and Matte Thornburg, who operated the business in a hand built building next to their family home in Statesville, North Carolina and whereas the Thornburgs started out as a small subcontract knitters for other mills, notably making socks for the United States military; and Whereas in the 1960s, the company moved to another location in Statesville, where it still maintains offices and warehouse space. And whereas in 1970, Lewis and Mattie Thornburg’s son, Jim became resident of the company. And whereas, during his early leadership, Jim Thornburg purchased a dyeing and finishing operation, which allowed Thoro to become a fully integrated manufacturing operation. And whereas a few years later, Thorlo moved away from contract knitting to manufacturing finished and packaged socks for several famous brands. And whereas in 1980, the company introduced the innovative athletic sock, Thorlose. And whereas in 1983, the company constructed a new 60,000 square-foot state-of-the-art manufacturing facility, allowing the company to increase its production. And whereas, for over 30 years, Thorlos have been the industry standard for food protection and comfort for sports, health and leisure activities and is available throughout the United States and over 33 countries around the world. And whereas, Thorlo remains one of the last 100% “Made in USA” textile brands. And whereas, Thorlo maintains an outlet store in Statesville, which attracts thousands of people each years. And whereas Thorlo has been operating for 60 years, growing from kitting on military style sock to a line of over 54 patented and engineered activity specific sock products for essentially all consumer lifestyles. And whereas Thorlo currently employs almost 300 employees and contributes approximately $10 million in salaries and benefits per year in the greater Statesville community. Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representative. Section 1. The House of Representatives honors the memory of Lewis and Mattie Thornsburg for their role in founding Thorlo, a company that has a tremendous impact on the textile industry. Section 2. The House of Representatives congratulates Thorlo on its 60th anniversary. Section 3. The Principal Clerk shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to James “Jim” Thornburg, owner and CEO of Thorlo, Incorporated Section4. This resolution is effective upon adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Turner is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, Lewis and Mattie Thornburg were innovative people and we were so fortunate that they chose to locate in our Iredell county in the Statesville area to develop their ideas. Lewis Thornburg believed that your life is worthwhile to the extent that you strive to become the acknowledged best at something. And he instilled that in his family. The Thornburgs did just that. in the 50s, 60s and 70s, they were in the business of contract knitting. They earned the reputation for making the best high quality socks for other well known apparel brands. But their dream was to develop their own brand. They wanted to make the best made product that people would value to the point of asking for.

By name, they have accomplished just that. Lewis and Mattie's son, Jim Thornberg, continued the family goals and invented Thorloughs. It was originally concieved to be the most protective sport specific athletic sock. The Thorloughs brand was so successful, and the company received so many letters, emails from satisfied consumers, healthcare and sports medicine professionals, that Jim realized that people were getting more than just the best athletic sock. They were getting foot protection, comfort, and foot health benefits. Congratulations to the Thorloughs for 60 years of operation. I proudly sponsor this resolution with Mr. Brawley and ask that you support and I commend this resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I actually received my first pair of Thorloughs without knowing what they were because they were given to me by my uncle. Uncle Sam issued me green socks made by Thorlough to wear inside my boots, but they were extremely comfortable and I wore those until I literally wore them out, for several years after I was in military service. I was grateful to learn that those same socks, and even better looking ones, were available in Statesville, North Carolina. The phrase technical socks sounds kind of strange, but I will tell you the main reason, those of us as we get older, discover something. Our feet hurt. And when you walk or you stand, your feet hurt. And the reason that is a problem is, if you want to stay young, if you want to stay active, you've got to exercise. And walking is some of the best cardiovascular exercise you can do. And if you have plantar fasciitis, and you put on Thorloughs with your walking shoes you can walk and your feet don't hurt. So, yes, they're manufacturing in the United States. Yes, they are competing on a worldwide stage when so many others fail. Yes, they are providing jobs. But more importantly, they are providing more life to those of us who are at a point in our life where we can't get parts, and things are starting to wear out. Because after all we don't get old, or we don't stop playing because we got old, we get old because we stop playing. Those of us with grey hair who are still young owe that in part to our Thorlough socks. I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's a great speech, and a great advertisement Representitive Brawley. Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the house, I'm not sure I can top that, I'm pretty sure there's not a bigger Thorlough fan in this legislature than I am. Every single trip I make to Ashville, I stop at the Thorlough Outlet and pick up a couple extra pairs. I'm sure I own at least 200 pairs of Thorlough socks. I've got some on today. I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My son hiked the whole entire Appalachian Trail in 1994 at 17 years old. He wore Thorlough socks the whole time. When one got wet, he put on the dry pair, so you keep your feet dry. I commend this resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Representative Ford, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Very thankful to Thorlough's and the jobs they provide in Ardale and in Rohan County. And they make a fantastic product, without a doubt. And I'm so glad that they have continued to compete in this new world that we live in. Continuing to do textiles in North Carolina, it's amazing. I commend the resolution. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of House Resolution 696. All in favor, vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

who was important 114 and inundated us resolution 696 is no doubt there will be lower, I used a house, senate presidents are time higher and higher owners Jerry Sanders and courtesies of the hour is it went on her son time worst place as well if ?? settlement with the only the president's advisers and copy for five years and send a fax that was an outline of the time the contact the hop industry as he did not reply support small piece of participation Sunday at time in a form of warranty as 1:18 AM Spock 4515 Orientation as tutors and all the pages must happen in fact of a package time is reporting was reported that a big step today is a smart fine cuisine disclosure is a presentencing thousands of dollars for operations and some better chance of housing and other times and haven't seen teams outside of the few residents upon the facts ?? per cent of the PlayStation purpose of the adoption of the commerce committee, or option to 91 income for definition does resonate well as members of the house of leisure time. And the house language in the occupant's report to the recall where to stay under this amendment we get them liars and they're also have the option to buy it on your side Riley all our mission recommended way, publishable processing credit- is not a question why houses the docs the numbers times ago 91 folder to the whole President Clinton ?? ?? or a dish years have ?? a tape that they have been as to not-call 00 a scenario as was instantly ?? be sent to her house bill six and one of the contact users fact that the department is no deals were Johnson of over one in times in replacing for purpose today the center has made no of the vendors this is a condom generate the annexation meaning that the capitol time this question is it that this latest events, and sites within the town and officer of the one you want to have an instance where a smaller districts would extend the time of his hell of a position to school for knowledge might best use for ?? process and president of the question for the house's passage of the house may substitute houses and once in every alderman the whole president tiled ?? others wishing to report places as a art was important 199 to 14, in the house may substitute in house bill trials exhibit was presently wouldn't exit will be records of it time since Israel 20 readers: house bill 133 courtly base after the house bill 133 building, at the same five users of the router construction Johnson of over one and personable and the PlayStation purpose two of the downtime has made no record straight and also has a solid offensive, thailand's ?? ?? ??.......

...Representative Brisson and me to run for them, allow them to use the design bill method on a couple of projects that they had, the small projects, less than a half million dollars. We'd appreciate your support on this bill. The Speaker Pro Tempore: Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to House Bill 133 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye; all opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will open the machine and record the vote. 119 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House committee substitute for House Bill 133 is passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. Clerk: General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The Speaker Pro Tempore: Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to House Bill 133 on its third reading. All in favor say aye; all opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House committee substitute for House Bill 133 is passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, upon a motion of Representative Steve Ross, from Alamance County, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Tammy Ross, his wife. Tammy please stand and let us welcome you. [applause] House Bill 610, the Clerk will read. Clerk: Committee substitute for House Bill 610, the bill being entitled a bill to reduce the seating capacity requirement and eliminate the population requirement for in-stand sales of malt beverages and to direct the ABC to adopt rules for the suspension of alcoholic beverages at professional sporting events. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. The Speaker Pro Tempore: Ladies and gentlemen, before we start the debate on this bill, and in the event that it goes longer, the Chair would entertain a motion of the Representatives from Mecklenburg, Representatives Samuelson, Bryan, Carney, and myself, someone who I know well and respect, Wayne Weston, we'd like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to. He's a former Director of Mecklenburg Park and Recreation Department and was very much part of the project for founding of the Little Sugar Creek Greenway, a great asset in Charlotte. Please stand and let us welcome you, Wayne. [applause] Representative Hardister, please state your purpose. Rep. Hardister: To debate the bill. The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. Rep. Hardister. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As we discussed last night, this bill would allow in-stand beer sales in professional venues with a seating capacity of at least 3,000. This only applies to professional athletic teams. This bill would direct the ABC Commission to adopt rules on suspending alcohol sales towards the end of an athletic event. We also noted last night that servers would not be allowed to shout the sale of beer, and vendors would be responsible for training their employees to properly serve alcohol. It's also worth noting that our surrounding states allow in-stand beer sales at professional athletic events, and with that I commend the bill and appreciate your support. The Speaker Pro Tempore: Representative Adams, please state your purpose. Rep. Adams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to speak briefly on the bill. The Speaker Pro Tempore: The lady is recognized to debate the bill. Rep. Adams: I didn't speak yesterday, I didn't realize the bill was going to have so much discussion. It seems to be pretty simple to me, but one of the things that didn't come up, and I wanted to pose a question to Representative Hardister. The Speaker Pro Tempore: Representative Hardister, does the gentleman yield? Rep. Hardister: I do. The Speaker Pro Tempore: The gentleman yields. Rep. Adams: Thank you, Representative Hardister. What provisions are made right now for people who have disabilities, who go to these events, who may be in the stands? Rep. Hardister: I don't know a hundred percent for sure, but I don't believe there are any, to my knowledge. Rep. Adams: May I speak on the bill? The Speaker Pro Tempore: The lady is recognized to debate the bill. Rep. Adams: Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, I think it's a good bill. I've looked at a lot of correspondence that have come from clubs across the state, including the Grasshoppers in Greensboro in my district. But I think I understand that currently you can go and purchase the beer, you can leave the stands do it, but to bring it back, you're still bringing it back up there, so I just really don't see what the fuss is about. I think if it's going to help, I don't think convenience is a bad thing, especially when you...

Speaker: Considered people who may have disabilities and no provisions provided for them right now so i think the bill they can do it in Sherlock they can i don't drink beer you know if wanna something buy in the stand and back up somebody who may be with me who is think we should be able to do that nor wit recommend to support the bill, Speaker Changes: further discussion further debate if not the question before the house the house is the passage of house committee substitute house bill 610 on it's third reading all in favor vote aye all oppose vote no the clerk will open the vote ,clerk record machine will record the vote 73 having voted in the affirmative 45 in the negative house committee substitute to house is pass it's third reading will be send to the senate, Speaker Changes: house bill 734 the clerk will read , Speaker Changes:?? house bill 734 the bill ?? state board of elections entering into data sharing experiments with other states recording information on voting records and voting registration to improve registration list maintenance general assembly of North Carolinian acts, Speaker Changes: Representative johns please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: the gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill the house will come into order, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Speaker Mr. speaker we had a good debate on this yesterday it is the bill that about voter integrity we discussed it yesterday and has to do inter state agreement with other states to trying to make sure the voter rules on what they should be the voters records are what they should be once again i appreciate your support in today , Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose, Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill Mr.Speaker, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: Mr.Speaker ladies and gentleman last night i was the one that objected the third reading of the bill lemme tell you my problem with it is that is with particularly in north Carolina ?? appreciating put voter registrations rules according to that NV is national voting registration acts that for to remove the maintenance procedures to receive ?? and it is planned across where you categorize state lands you get many many errors in Florida they tried to do it ?? were close to 12,00 people who were eligible to vote were removed from the resulted these costly land checks i would suggest you that our state boards of elections has the perfect method for doing this and our rules are such that we don' t have a problem with it and some in any legislation's this is unnecessary and any likely to bring in act ?? the voters registrations rules in north Carolina, Speaker Changes:federal state laws have been carefully crafted to allow count boards of elections to re view voter registration rules and to correct these methods on those rules this allows and nothing will do ?? instead wit will pt eligible voters to very real risk of being unfairly targeted and remove from the registration rules i would suggest you to think long and hard before you suggest this , Speaker Changes: Representative ? please state your purpose Speaker Changes: apologize i just wanted to be recorded on voting yes on senate bill 91, Speaker Changes: the gentlemen having voted recorded yes on senate bill 91,further discussion further debate if not the question to before the house Comintern substitute to house bill 734 on it's third reading all in favor vote aye all oppose vote no the clerk will read the clerk will open the vote all members wishing to record so please do this,this time clerk will record the machine record the vote 81 having voted in the affirmative 37 in the negative the house committee substitute the house bill 734 will pass it's second reading and will be send to the senate, house bill 935 the clerk will read ,

507: Speaker1: 935, xx renaming the Childcare commission the Early Childcare and Education commission in expanding the scope of the scope of the commission to encompass xx relating to early childhood education programs and making other conforming statutory changes ; requiring that local partnership shall be the soul contracting demonstrators for the pre-kindergarten program and try and find a definition of ‘at risk’ as related to xxx participation in North Carolina pre-kindergarten Program . Representatives of North Carolina in Act. Speaker changes: Representative Bryant?? please state your purpose. Speaker changes: To speak on the bill. Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker, we ran through the three sections of the bill last week and I won’t do that again, but I do want to add that over the last two and a half years the General assembly has really worked to make a lot of improvements, in early childhood education. You know in previous years it’s been study after study and we tried to take action and actually move the ball down the field towards the goal-line. And I believe we have done that and this is one step to continue that to make sure again we are focusing on children who are at risk and xx should improving early childhood education which is why in the last two years we have taken high quality pre-K curriculum that we are talking about at [xxx] and moving that over to the subsidy to the xx programs ; there are many kids who may not even qualify for the Pre-K program but in another four year old class private childcare facility and receiving the same hard curriculum in those class rooms. There are many children in the state receiving this opportunity either through assistance of the state or through their parents paying but it is an opportunity they have. We leave intact the quality, some we have had subsidy dollars that go out into the community, the Federal dollars xx which is why we have seen a rise in the number of high quality of early childhood facilities in the state. We are taking steps, we are serious about doing that and we working to put early childhood education back on track in the state making sure it is focusing on literacy, on health and quality. This bill will continue us down that path and it helps us to do that to working with the private sector in the childcare facilities and I would respectfully ask members to support the bill and Mr. Speaker, do you mind an amendment, I would like to amend the bill; an amendment I would like to bring forward. Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized and the clerk will read. Speaker changes: Representative Bryant wishes to amend the bill on page five line 45 by rewriting the line to read.. Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker this makes a change on page five that you can see again our intent is to make sure we are covering children who are truly at risk, who is at the 100 percent Federal poverty level and this I send in for those, I have heard some concern about the ability to cover the kids really at the, what the Governor says, a hundred and thirty percent. This amendment will do that, will allow those counties who have concerns for members will allow to cover up to 130percent and for more children to have access when the funds are available. But the important piece here is to make sure we are covering kids who are really at risk and this would do it and I would ask for your support of this amendment and for the bill, thank you Mr. Speaker. Speaker changes: Further discussion further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the House is to pass it to the xxx and for the House committee substitute House bill 135 all in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. Clerk will record the vote.[pause] All members wishing to xx please do so this time. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. One hundred and fourteen having voted in the affirmative, two in the negative the amendment passes; we are now back on the bill. Speaker changes: Representative Harley please state your purpose. Speaker changes: xx with amendment. Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized to xx with the amendment. Clerk will read. Speaker changes: Representative Bryant amended the bill on page five, lines 18 and 48 by deleting July 1, 2013 and substituting July 1,2014 in both places. Speaker changes: The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Speaker changes: Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, very short amendment and what it does is giving us more time and our units to the programs to xx As you see it right now, would give basically 30 days for them to be prepared and act on this, get the word out and to get the people have alternate means for addressing their needs, again this would give a period of time of approximately a year for everyone to get the information and take whatever measures were necessary.

I talked to the bill sponsor and tried to make sure the information was available to other persons for their response, not sure of what the bill's sponsor opinion is on this amendment is but certainly it is one that gives people fair opportunity to find other measures to address the needs that we know we have. We have the need under this bill we know we're not meeting and all of the need as we've had in the past and this would provide some additional time for folks to get resources in place to meet the needs of the children of our state. I appreciate your support on the amendment. [speaker changes] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [speaker changes] Speak on the amendment [speaker changes] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate Representative Hall bringing the amendment forward, but I don't think its necessary. I can tell members traditionally changes like this, early childhood education and others are included in the budget, and these are changes that become effective July 1 of that year, and traditionally, the budget passes at the end of June and sometimes if not after that sometimes during July, so this is, by passing this bill, we are giving folks additional notice beyond what they would traditionally get, making sure they are aware these changes happen every year and never seems to be an issue when eligibility has been changed in the past or something of that effect, so I really see no need in this change in the date, so I would ask that you oppose the amendment. Thank you. [speaker changes] Representative Brandon, does gentleman wish to speak on the amendment? [speaker changes] I just need to be recorded as voting aye on the last amendment please. [speaker changes] The gentlemen records as having voted aye on the last amendment. Representative Glazier please state your purpose [speaker changes] To debate the amendment [speaker changes] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the amendment. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise to support the amendment in part because I raised I think one of the people raised the question on the date of the original discussion of the bill. With the switch to the fact we have 45 administrative units that now are controlling, to be able to tell them that they are going to have to switch in a matter of weeks, I think has raised enormous problems in the field. I'm talking with folks back home, and I know talking with other folks over the weekend across the state, there are some partnerships that simply aren't ready to take this administrative burden, they may be ready in a year, but they're not ready now. There are others that really probably aren't in a position to do so, with adequate resources to do so with administrative capacity,and this really is a good measure to at least give time for that section of the bill to come into play. As to eligibility on the bill, as it relates to the amendment, again because we are making eligibility changes and I really appreciate Representative Burr's amendment that moves to 100 to 130, lets not forget that we're still down from 200 percent. We're still eliminating eligibility of tens of thousands of kids, recognize that we're not going to fill those slots, when you change the eligibility, it's not as if there's an automatic conversion list. The conversion list won't happen in what my district tells me at least based on the 100 percent figure,is that given the change we're making, it will not be able to fill all the slots, and we have a long waiting list, that they will only be able to identify only 75 percent of the spots. We really are affecting a lot of children who are not only eligible and are now receiving the benefit of the program, and so I think Representative Hall's amendment solves both those problems in at least the terms of time to make sure we get all the kids we want to get, and that the administrative capacity exists and I support the amendment. [speaker changes] Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [speaker changes] Speak on the amendment. [speaker changes] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the resolution. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm going to disagree with the logic of my friend Representative Burr. I don't think this is a budgetary matter at all. I think its a preparedness matter, preparedness of administration, it's not, that's not something you do over night, that's not something you do by ripping the page of the budget document. Folks, I think we're getting ready to make the mistake of passing this entire bill, if you're gonna make that mistake, at least, soften this blow, because there's some folks out there who are not going to be ready in a couple of months. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [speaker changes] Representative Steinburg, please state your purpose. [speaker changes] Speak on the amendment [speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Five of these, I have six counties, and five of my school districts I've been in contact with, and they have some

the lesson shares some of the all-time survey but they were shortsighted for implementation of a hospital for a holiday, if the bill has 21 for more information, even have a timers shown she won't be available at this time, he went to -head what's the purpose of the walls ceil borsch and for the Sammamish, strife and that after she added that also parishioners, which is cause for several hundred times 12 of the understand that, the channel his special investigator on hundred-style that leaves and the actual compromise for us to be able to at least the primary wins that, the official here that prepared for this story and support the time that the share personnel are PlayStation purpose seen in the dumps recognize a victim of its hostile is again that the district level measure because we have over 40 counties that have similar predicament what about the county's express the exam 77 and declare all saints three counties of happy valley and that time is a short shorts use the word from Indy circuit states must be supported and person dollar PlayStation prime shooter and other has made him a watershed sensitivities rest of-sponsors roles of the other supporters reality is that we have seen time and edition forms to offer as we got to win seasons we were going on our shores and we hear a pin one of times before the outdoors on we have come up with a definition that Mr. Happened before with minutes of the next budget year on the inner city power for an additional flexibility trial of his mail with a firearm in the all the records us a matter of practicality that we cannot, fortunately for implementation of one of 2014 of the fact that the nation at risk in place to a 24 chain saw restaurant don't even China is estimated that women would not a question for the house's passage in the disappointments in one of the house may substitute house 135 aldermen the whole president time ?? a time as it were placed the subs, what was important 60 janitor and 86 and in the masses Auerbach mail processing president it's not a question for the house passed the house but I'm to 2035 as an unsavory alderman of all president and riled ?? others wishing to report places as a ?? who was important 69 added 13 and 14 and the house may substitute for house lottery, since passes the reading time in prison sentence of as a reason for only chanting and raise the fees for clients that are our views sliding or inspired time were spotted by our native of Astoria one for the midst of the access to more possess ½ Mission Trail and saint about that person is about concealing the permit made in HongKong and the sale of the middle of the employee time the market are concealed handgun and a lot of media: prince of new college , but I'm going to reverse the very end of the disabling renovation these charts are essentially hard it is only as an honest person in a data center ??.................

Control of the premises as posted to notices prohibiting the carrying of handguns on the premises, to provide the an employee of an institution of higher education who lives in a certain type of campus residence may keep the gun in the employee’s locked vehicle in the parking area of the institution of higher education. To clarify the law on government authority to prohibit concealed carry of firearms and establish uniformed state requirements for reporting information concerning mental health and substance judicial determinations or findings to the National Instant Criminal Background Checks System,, and to make these requirements more consistent with federal firearms laws. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Schaffer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The House will come to order. The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, we had a lengthy debate on this bill last night. I just simply want to remind you all that we have a good balanced bill in front of us here today. It has the support of our Sherriff’s Association law enforcement as well as our traditional second amendment advocates. We have worked very hard to really reach both sides of this issue and this debate, coming together in this bill and we simply urge your support of the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Riddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Friends, I had an amendment in the ?? last night before the friends on the other side of the aisle decided to cut off the debate so I’d like to send forth that amendment at this time, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to send forth and amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Riddell moves to amend the bill on page 8, line 7 by re-writing that line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Ladies and gentlemen, this amendment is designed to secure the concealed carry permit for those who have gone through the laborious task. My concern is that by allowing someone who is determined necessary for involuntary commitment, either to an in-patient or out-patient facility, having subsequently gotten treatment and gone through the process to have their rights restored, I believe a medical determination as well as the judicial, that this person can then immediately go out and apply for a concealed carry permit. My personal feeling is that it’s a little bit of a rush and that we should have a waiting period. My amendment suggests a 7-year waiting period. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. President, I believe this amendment was in the queue last night, but wasn’t heard, but with due respect, I believe that we should table the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The motion made my Representative Moore is seconded by Representative Burr. The motion is to lay on the table the amendment sent forth by Representative Riddell for the House Committee substitute on House Bill 937. All in favor vote, “Aye”. All opposed vote, “No”. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The clerk machine will record the vote. 64 having voted in the affirmative and 50 in the negative. The motion passes. We’re back on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To ask to be recognized to send forth and amendment, please. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to send forth and amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 11, by inserting immediately before ?? the following. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, the amendment that I’ve sent forth really is to do with the university provision. In the bill, as you may recognize as it exists now, it provides for bars and restaurants to say, as I recall, that they don’t want to have carry conceal entities. They can post a conspicuous notice and prohibit that from occurring. This is simply to ask, or would allow the institutions of higher education, public and private, to do the same. That is, if their boards don’t want carry conceal on their campuses, they can post a conspicuous notice that says no as well. It seems to me if we’re willing to protect bar and restaurant to that extent,…

We'll always be able to protect our citizens have been since there was good and have the highest ever for purposes of RS on this course is very critical issue one of the San campuses for their own decision in a adoption of the than 60 person for PlayStation purpose-machine does as Russia as Dustin Hoffman was in a diverse and for a second person per the motion of motion until I was able to present for the resident waste time a substitute 1009 37 aldermen the whole President Clinton others wishing to report places as a who was important to see a different point of native was passed this person is simply station purpose I think a lot of time hasn't ago I think it is a senior of his townhouse testing leads the NL Parks and dryer in S a county does not now is the case and not as a process that means the public in 1909. Not here or in also found a good night, and it's takes people now I know that I mind in a fire deaths I think us on Thursday with all the head wounds to warrant more people at the time they're in their injuries action following were workouts in mortal sin is not one AS Z riled by nineties and really concerned about all his ren and half cents for ren as well as more and more try looking more and more interested in on each for factions for extent print and unseen firearms a very reasonable, it's tested at the end of the majority have access to guns in fasting does your money into consideration would also at a time it's a sad stories and firearms to protect minors install solar in fines and other traditions and she incurs ?? He passed down chime in message, hundreds of bodies interested in the house was me and I'll do not rinse the sound I had intended as a stronger enhance that are people that did not live yet there is no ren Allen’s people were telling how long he would get copies and finishing at atmosphere of your of my hood and you is written as important partly residence, spend the time online from the three by the end and the laser has made, I think it is a senior in Teachable are in the time of life is seen as I got close to my ear offers many seniors and ages nine and the number two on authorized persons interested in our quest for outline any time since it is the last year for king world war I have his day after suggesting, $9.00 and 89 in its mouth is the only thing the time he is the highest is next month when a stinger is a very fine since the end of it protects action on a three and 39 am I a Virginia coal for a person irony station purpose or-dozen estimation of zeros in the office was a U.S. indictments and party was second, simply one key question for the house is one of the role the menacing for the rest times its as a substitute for houseman a similar to the whole President Clinton ??????............

China up to settle at an exhibit of motion as I am personally resume station purpose and hello Israel has made no ideas to raise the house of this as a sign of things and businesslike canisters as I said narcotics and prefer that we are not been a decisive and as far as our inside the Internet Santos and on and the states reporting act in print and save time, run since the season at the opposite direction and down at the nineties, when Stephen Hess the magazine's editor of outside his apartment you is that I'm one of the partly when city has this been developed a lot like 23 times a day and and stories and more PlayStation purpose-time citizen has 117-setting in motion a parts imported listeners in the party line on table and dancing for this hasn't Harrison was that person will display station time, chairman of the citizenry on is that shareholder of a 21 time owners and investors amendment would eliminate of your own age for him so fond of him, and the amount each an hour have been no the ?? via a series as with all other and wiser than in the house once in a one-member of the chair is shares: according to the measure was available in the ?? share has all the bars and a teenager to please confirm Oakland in a session of the matter of their days before the netmeeting, sponsors of this particular case because does 22nd timeout onto the question of the shares was quite a question for the houses because of the motions of more than 41% of mortal a second resident are times in one table the medicine for the President Aristide to the house may substitute warehouse 137 aldermen of all President Clinton ?? ?? will lose was the report is designed as a part was important time in four and a different 0.3 and in motion passes person in Jackson PlayStation purposes it all the time has made no difference maker of a new interest in precision and three assists the body of the duties of each time we want is missing is the only reason the punishment is it's the lost city to go out and out of one of us on space China now have the best 118 marks in our interest and excitement in 29 of the past eight years as our own, but it has no interest in the senate last week one conviction that time has a long reason to 67 seals utilities in one town and seniors : is the leading actresses wasn't time a sitting opposite is below its all] call from the rest would encourage only found long run for 61 points we use 1¢ in a letter from the trial it's on the Navajo was in until cake rack over stories what I'm saying the maoris can't think of all some like it was not introduced, so not because of the ballpark is unhappy share with you were running the following information is a classic is the last time the zone and slow is a classy has been well it's the flight of the gun violence and ?? are the law works outlays on all counts of unity, and alder more serious misdemeanors are dry listings out the potential for ??...............

to call Sears home track the overall A1 misdemeanour's, and based on that regard. be recognized for men. Jim is right now. some fourth amendment. the gargle right. the adjunct placement. if they are clerical deal from him in the jar understands you may note that Burns and Jackson you may have one or more members and forth with you wish to have read Thank you Mr. Speaker understand the speaker of the late stone on the desk for a late sixteen version four. article write a LH– sixteen before Rex a Jackson moves to amend the bill on page one line twenty three by deleting, and all that wine and sugar birds are more pleased that your purpose of motion. the don't ask for much of the moves the general 's motion. on the second a motion made by revs in a more secular representative are the question of whether houses the motions lamp on the table in minutes and forth by Rosetta Jackson to the house committee substitute browse the amount thirty seven all out at all," noted Mark Levin [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote all members wishing to record places of his time took the clerk what machine record about sixty nine hundred affirmative and forty five, and the negative emotion passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker, Linda Fisher, please take your purpose on the sticker for the latest they were going. I also come in order Mister Speaker, ladies and gentleman and I really am concerned about what were doing it this afternoon on we always like to set a good example, especially for the pages here each week and I think that what we're seeing here is what you are witnessing after name is not the way through the debate happens. I think the is a way to reduce later point in order to recognize how important is that I would like to see a loud that they continue on these amendments, rather than to have them lay on the table or cut off that it may thank you recognize your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] , you were to respond to someone who weighs one order from mining is the point of personal privilege, you must recognize members of the physician members. I was super for the November matters to every concerns to rule sixteen, a rules page one fourteen of your book motion. the table was an order is, it is a motion of higher precedence. it is one in which the numbers are allowed to make one in which the speakers allowed to take any point and would just point out to the member that this motion is being made. they are contemplated by the rules and just for my life forcibly following our rules and represented Fisher, just by way of clarification, you may notice that in some cases, an amendment has been sent forth, and a sponsored event is an opportunity to speak before the motion was taken in another instance, the most was taken immediate after the date immediately after that member recognizes them for the amendment. the difference being that in the cases where of the motion was made by the rules chair without explaining amendment at amendment was not introduced are allowed to be reviewed by the chair until the moment that the minimum set forth in other words to sponsor the event requested that the content of the moment not be disclosed until the point in time when the chair recognizes Mister the fourth, which means that there was literally no time until that point versus take a position on the amendment is for that reason I've taken many rules chairs advice on a disposition that using today and I will be made up and well be the case in instances where the chair and a quarter carcass, Adam possession the chair and the roles jurors had an opportunity to see the amendment sponsor of the amendment will have an opportunity to speak with forwards those of the bill presented Jones. please thank your purpose and make available the John is right last night. bill by three speaker, I want my colleague Lawrence, I wanted to draw the members attention back to the low drawing nearly got here today. how yesterday I guess from my friend from Guilford representative blasting out on that if representative Blessed is personally responsible for the artwork are not backed up at p.m. and I'm a pretty good point. I kept man, but for those that have a problem distinguishing good guys with guns versus bad guys with guns

...marked out the good guys and bad guys on my copy, and it says "law-abiding citizens with guns versus criminals with guns." And to answer my colleague's question, "Well, how do you tell the difference?" with a law-abiding citizen with a gun, is someone that has a gun not to commit a crime, but to protect himselfs and their families from a crime. It can be a defensive weapon as well, you know. Criminals, on the other hand, would be defined as those that choose not to obey laws for whatever reason. They're carrying a weapon for the purpose of committing a crime. And it is the opinion of many, and I think it is the opinion of the majority of the people in this state, that passing more gun laws and passing more prohibitions against citizens carrying guns is-- part of the reason that that's not the answer is because a criminal, being defined by someone who's not going to obey the law anyway-- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would representative Jones yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, I heard you say just a moment ago that you do not think people of this state want any more gun safety measures. Did I hear you correctly, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, I didn't say that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thought you said something along those lines. Could you tell me what you did say about gun safety amendments, et cetera? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will member please restate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I was just asking, as a follow-up if I might. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Representative Jones, I heard you say that you thought the people of this state do not want more amendments, legislation, et cetera, in the area of gun safety. Are you telling me that I did not hear you correctly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't believe that's exactly what I said Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you then kindly-- I'll sit down if you'll kindly state-- restate-- what you said. I understood you to say that people did not want, the people of this state did not want more gun safety. Because I was going to point out the majority of people of this state of all political parties do support banning assault weapons, according to the latest public opinion poll. Wondered if you could elaborate on your point. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I don't believe I mentioned assault weapons. People define those in different ways. I believe what I said if I can recall exactly what I said, was that law-abiding citizens with guns were citizens that carry guns for the purpose of defending themselves and their family. They're not carrying those guns for the purpose of committing a crime. And I believe that I pointed out that criminals as I would define it are people who are interested in breaking the law and are carrying guns for the purpose of breaking the law. And I believe that I pointed out that it was my opinion that the majority of people in this state happen to believe that-- they believe in Second Amendment rights, they believe in the right to carry a weapon and defend oneself, and I believe that they do not want to see us passing more laws that most people don't think that criminals are going to obey to start with. So if that helps to clarify my position, I would like to say that I think that the majority of the people would agree-- probably all the people would agree-- with every legislator in here. We don't like violence. We don't like gun violence. And if, I believe if you'll read your history you'll find-- in American history, in world history, all the way back to the beginning of time-- we've seen tremendous acts of violence, terrible acts of violence that I don't even think we want to go into today, long before the gun was ever invented. And so I think-- I know that the left generally drives this debate, and any time there's an act of violence that's committed by a gun, the left wants to pass more laws against carrying guns. And I would simply point out that I think history proves otherwise. I do recall, and this was before my time, but as a student of history I believe that one of the reasons that Japan did not invade the United States of America, at least what they said after World War II, was because they believed that the American people were the largest fighting force in the world because the citizens of this country had the opportunity to have weapons. They didn't want to invade this country. And all I'm saying is that if you don't like good guys with guns versus bad guys with guns, maybe think about law-abiding citizens able to carry guns to defend themselves versus criminals carr...

And guns to commit a crime. And that was the point that I believe that I was trying to make and I would encourage your passage for this good bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. To give you a little bit of background on where I, from whence I come, I believe strongly in the second amendment rights. I’m a long time member of NRA. I’m a long time hunter and I believe in guns. I was taught to handle guns by my father. When my own son was of height, I taught him how to handle guns. My son has taught his son, which is my grandson who served as a page here a couple weeks ago, how to handle guns. So I believe in guns, and I believe in gun safety. But as I’ve listened to this debate, I’m almost like King Agrippa, when he was approached by the Apostle Paul. Almost have been persuaded. But now my heart’s heavy, because I’ve witnessed debate on this floor that’s been curtailed, channeled, cut off, on amendments that I think could make this bill better, so that many of us could vote on this bill. Because we do believe in keeping our families safe. And so that bothers me. I want this state to be safe. We all want that. I don’t think there’s anybody doesn’t want this state to be safe. We all believe in gun safety. But whenever we cut off wholesome debate that could be utilized to make this bill a palatable bill, I’m very gravely concerned. I would have to vote no as this bill now stands. And the primary reason, if you will look on page 2, line 1, it states that even if you have a concealed carry weapon and you have that in a public place, you’re breaking the law if you open that glove compartment. Now what good is that gun in a locked glove compartment if you’re being accosted? I’m breaking the law if I open that compartment. It says at all times, it has to be locked up. So think about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be recognized to send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 27 by changing the period on that line to a semicolon and adding the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will hold until after the motion is put. The gentleman will be recognized for a point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the gentleman’s motion lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke is recognized to state his point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order Mr. Speaker is that you recognized me to send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to spend forth an amendment. The gentleman was not recognized to debate the amendment. Representative Moore, the Rules Chair was recognized in turn, as has been the case with other motions of this nature. The gentleman is recognized, is already recognized to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that, again as I stated before, I move that the gentleman’s motion lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion being made by Representative Moore, duly seconded by Representative Burr. The motion before the House is to lie upon the table the amendment sent forth by Representative Luebke to the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 937. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE]

All members wishing to record please do so at this time. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Seventy-four having voted in the affirmative, forty-three in the negative. The motion passes. Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker, I do not have an amendment to send forward so they won't have the privilege of knocking down an amendment I might have had. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman continues to be recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen, lots of things have been tried in order to get some things done in here. But you know a couple of weeks ago I spoke to you about an oath that we all took to support the Constitution of the United States and to support the Constitution of the State of North Carolina as long as it was not inconsistent with the United States Constitution. That was the oath that you took. That was which you placed your hand on the bible to do. So what I want to do today is simply to call your attention to the Constitution of the State of North Carolina. Article 1, Section 30. An oath of one look it up. Article 1, Section 30, of the North Carolina Constitution. The first phrase in that section sets out Article 2 of the United States Constitution, which you call the right to bear arms, which shall not be infringed. Second part of that section also sets out another constitutional amendment which says about, talks about standing armies. But it is to the last phrase in that particular section of the North Carolina Constitution that I will call to your attention. That phrase says, "Nothing herein shall justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice." That's our constitution. That's what it says. So in order to be sure that I was on some kind of firm ground, I went back to check to see whether or not there was any pieces or anything involving this particular section of the Constitution. And I did find something and to show you the Constitution we're reading from is the Constitution of 1971. Well the case, and only case I found referring to that particular section of the constitution was in 1921, which meant that that same phrase was in the constitution even before 1971. And here's what it said, "For case stating that the last clause of this provision constitution exception to the first," remember the first clause was the right to bear arms. The last law was the one against concealed weapons. It indicates the extent to which the right of the people to bear arms can be restricted. That is that the legislature can prohibit and prohibit the carrying of concealed weapons but no further. Now what I have told you ladies and gentlemen today is what the Constitution of North Carolina says. And of course, there's that old saying that goes around, "What's the constitution among friends." Well, you want to be friends? I think the constitution means a lot, but it's there. That's what it says. And you can go on and continue doing what you're doing but you remember that you placed your hand on the bible and swore to uphold the constitution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Ballins, please state your purpose.

reason that have become a design has made no real life that was a conciliator dollars in fact Sunday, to get NAZI hunter five urinals as she accidentally by the total of five years of time on existing restaurants and a female somebody was losing one for dinner was served alcohol and no time did not sing from the calls made on the net, so no one was detected altogether and the house also won the hearts of a factor in a standstill, calls the time all weeks because of my colleagues one is I didn't start installing cities because while the descendants of it on the legislate how see your time and redesign the thirties in a student is 11,000 are you crazy when we see Turkey is not whether can't allow Sunday's one trial disease and consequences of the fighting recognizes we should steer the right things to do all of the election was a longtime city bar exam which are all aware of that season 1 to 91 report is based on an 0 to 1 dollar a slowdown in Oslo, all the defined as it began the holes is not one of the one you're playing redesigned off and remained light of all of its it was likely to suffer as the consequences of all citizens of the wrong time likely don't make my wife-beating a solid fear factor comes in with not reacting by accident or react emotionally those on it off in a symbolic of fewer people than likely that all through the process of 101 dime and lack of sixties and are permitted to offer the fighting was because I steamed actors excited to have decided to sell their time as a paper loss in all the people of your how to assemble the height of the infighting was aired of hominids in the seventies as it might normally on united, but they cannot housing to 31 1/2 hours a week and does not have all but three days of losses and a lot easier time than it was interesting in all know that you had a zero-major figure in the proper fight on business to five state that on the guns of them was because there was the fear of people time, novel and carried as lawfully and of us interesting player players in the last time the areas of the season are they the University of Cincinnati perl small towns as a part time as does the parties they are sacred places where the data that has a snotty competition nobody has a URL of the access to the Fountain Valley 99 has been seen in this resort is impaired people have been possible time and that none of these as the weather the theater's exposes a matter of museum is under attack and still one of these are people about it-the-scenes likely that one has even signed, fasting has been a single available parking you might not stop the first 1002 starts of last season night, and the uniform of the time of sale for some reason is a slicing the people of the estate for anybody else might Islam or e-mail time when we have done deal with the legislature not be far more emails from opposition was an exhibit was playing all business you not end of the lottery's timeline and 95 as a whole, the sideline will let you buy your body was somehow that the cumbersome and already the time of all eight, 101 for injured in a 300 in Salinas and 96 was on a sportsman personal time a station purpose beyond our daughter has made no payments because the house and riled us my teeth and seen Saturday and Sunday said they entail some of the session we see that we have to play the timing whether a politically active players of the gallery is worth mayors and 7¢ sorry that might be in a stunning classroom, and others may ?? ??..........

in the General Assembly gives specifics that add onto their textbooks, and they're up here in the gallery, supposedly when they're here watching democracy at work.But I would submit to you members, that what we'd seen last night and this afternoon has not been democracy at work, I'm not sure what word should be used. But I would just simply say that it's wrong. And I think the people of North Carolina would agree with me that it's wrong that amendments to a bill that are sent forward in good faith, that are representing the views of each of us who send forward an amendment, and I'm including that- my Republican colleague whose amendment was tabled. When each of use sends forward an amendment, ?? that be [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] added to that bill, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Daughtry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order, he's supposed to be arguing the bill. He's talking [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair was providing latitude, but the Chair was about to arrive at the same point from Rep. Daughtry which was well taken. Rep. Luebke, we're debating the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'll move back onto that track. When we had those amendments they should have been heard. Up or down votes for each of us to be able to report back to our constituents. Why? Because it is my belief that particularly the two items that were raised, added to the bill, and I believe Rep. Jackson can correct me if wrong, but I think in his, the committee in which he was, judiciary committee, the item to allow for weapons to be carried onto campuses, Can we cut the chatter a bit? [SPEAKER CHANGES] House will come to order. The gentleman is debating the bill, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I certainly am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Talking about the amendments that were added in the committee, one having to do with whether guns can be carried onto [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask if the gentleman would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You yielded for me, I'll yield for you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative, I appreciate that. I've enjoyed our dialogue today. I just wanted to ask you in the spirit of- I know that you're upset about the fact that these amendments have not been heard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You were here back in the good old days, so to speak, when your party was in the majority and this bill could have been written so that the entire bill could have been in the title and no bill could have been offered. Was that the right thing to do Representative? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I think you would know if you knew me and my all my 23 years that're here, I've often not agreed with the reasons that leadership of the Democratic party might have made. I happen to like, as I told the speaker last night, the fact that we can change the title on the floor. So I happen to think that is one of the innovations, that was a good one. I will acknowledge that. I do think though, going back to the bill, sir, and ?? regarding process Mr. Speaker. On the bill, being able to bring a weapon onto a college campus. In response to that action by the committee, the President of the University of North Carolina, each of the chancellors at the 16 campuses, and as I understand it, each of the chiefs of police on the 16 campuses requested that that item within the bill, that portion of the bill be removed from the bill. Rep Adams brought forth an amendment, or tried to last night, to get a vote on the amendment to do just that, which not just average citizens but actually fairly prominent citizens of our state were asking this general assembly, this state house to do. I completely agree with all the chancellors, with the President, with the chiefs of police that guns do not belong on campus. I'd bet you if PPPB does a poll, they'd find that the majority of North Carolinians agrees, the majority agrees with me on this. But the fact is, we were denied a vote on something that is of great importance to the leaders of our education institution. I just think that's a mistake, it's a mistake in policy, but it's also a mistake that we couldn't show the leaders of our education institutions where we stand on this item. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And secondly, on the item ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Horn ?? if the gentleman will yield. Rep. Horn, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask the gentleman a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Luebke, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will, it might be faster if I just didn't but go ahead, as you wish. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Brief question. Do you really believe that there are no guns on college or university campuses today? Do you really believe that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would say that under current law, if there are they're in violation of the law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That wasn't my question sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman

test, as I know I am done us I specifically ask you if you were slightly better arm, the hands of college and university campuses in the state time that personalizes among other client of their on-one-under the delegated the City Council of an illegal use of investing press and the cities, is really the one- it does offer for making the speaker and just have one, I'll race, said Zealand area restaurant on China as a matter of record is one of the solace in place an infusion of plot time reading went in the Midwest and silk areas of the spotlight, business was in his office, seeing a lot of the deal as you have an idea you have concealed Ryan actually, he said, it immediately by the right person Jackson and on the visa section of your seal the right to appeal Friday over the question this time round exit is genuine idea to tell us just as they make clear what your debt limit, specter that interrupt trading in his letter, are timed and often people can't imprison Siemens you get one for PlayStation Point ironies of the gallery that women don't see any inquiry from this was a time to repair the the steer the shares as of the shares eased somewhat im and the subsequent action committee was one of the shares in some parts and Jackson applet for the amendment that the Jarvis, not comment but that hasn't been the case last month in sometime residents lack of opportunity is women since the purposes of this special circumstance chair as 1 to 1 question you ask and answer person just use lines, which are having on his success without an infusion of time the order and one call the one used out the use of failure from wealthy users call from one of the ad hoc automatically placed I'm still in this year's as the 19 nineties port of Miami and it wouldn't make a presentation time at a worse than sell at a higher education silver-strengthening of our statute on the appeal chime the flat-tax, state, with competition-in-a-team and isolated one of the idea he was people in the state would like to see that the protection of MSN, and the air time setting that is still hadn't started up all the rest of the person is not in the late a file not as many are on Sunday and Tuesday of the science doesn't live here is the best song has a full day on the issues of these unfortunate , is the longest substance also because of the season times in making numbers person at a space station purpose ; and so is that has made no agency. In a place inspections on Jones's access to firearms isn't that I'll hire a consultant in the season for the SMS one community college campuses is not some it as a sweetener timing of its crest in a UNC System president as well as the nineties but schools devastating as security personnel Time Homes and weapons on campus because it increases the danger on most campuses the time we now have the names of question as the new weapons on Palestinians is clearly in the time that happened in the dns Sunday are on the side of the act, enacted because they and updated it was only in the fast as a time when some campuses and we found CNN's is now seen only does the buses into 10 ethnic and sea isle of state, except was in high school and elementary school students, as well and has this season, will drive it, it found in the city's best ?? ??.................

...We have contract employers who frequent the campus as well. The safety of visitors, students and staff and faculties at the universities is provided by trained law enforcement personnel. And that is the way it should be. I know we have heard that the Sheriff's association supports firearms on campuses, but sheriffs do not provide the protection and security to these campuses. They arrive usually after instances have occurred. All of these schools have said to us that they prefer to keep the number of weapons allowed on campus to a minimum. I have had the privilege of serving on a college campus for forty years, and I know that students often engage in risky behaviors, and to add the legal possession of weapons as a possibility could very well lead to disastrous consequences that none of us really want. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask Representative Adams a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may finish, I will be happy to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields at the end of her comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As I said before, college students engage in risky behaviors, and we really shouldn't be adding to those possibilities. I think if we are going to error today, we should do it on the side of making sure that campuses are safe, that they are safe environments for our students, for our employees, for visitors including young children who are on the campuses. The potential for tragedy having weapons on college campuses far outweighs any potential benefit or convenience to carry concealed permit holders. And having said that Mr. Speaker, I would like to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams moves to amend the bill on page one, lines nine through eleven by rewriting those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move that the lady's amendment to lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion, having been made by Representative Moore is seconded by Representative Burr to lie upon the table. The amendment sent forth by Representative Adams, for the house committee substitute to house bill 937. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [silence] Clerk, the machine will record the vote, 71 having voted in the affirmative, 44 in the negative, the motion passes. Ladies and Gentleman of the house, just from Representative Wilkins' question earlier prompted me to do a better job of explaining the process we were going through there, when someone is recognized to send forth an amendment, they have the floor. If some other member, just as you sometimes do, to ask or interrupt a member to ask the floor to ask a question. A member can also be recognized to offer or to be recognized for a motion of higher precedence. There is only a limited number of them, the motion to table is one of them, and it is a non-debatable motion. And in that particular case, the member was recognized for that purpose, and that is why the sequence of the debate goes as it did, and as it just did with Representative Adams' motion. Representative Adams, would the lady like to be recognized a second time to debate the bill? Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, a question on procedure, based on what you just explained. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, when a member sends forward an amendment, isn't it correct that the member is the first one that has to be recognized after the amendment, prior to anyone else being recognized? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not necessarily, Representative Hall, in fact, the member could have spoken the first word had another member interrupted as sometimes happens here and has happened today, and at that point in time, the member could have been recognized for that motion, or for that matter could have been recognized for a motion to adjourn, which we would have also taken a vote on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his second inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, you indicated that some of the motions were not heard because they were not disclosed in advance, and this is the first that members have heard, is there a specific period of time that motions to amend, or amendments have to be disclosed? Is there a specific period of time so that we know going forward?

How much ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think your point is well taken, representative Hall. I think as a professional courtesy to the members on either side that if an amendment is going to be brought forth that the first time that it would occur and in fact before the dashboard you would have at least had the length of time between the time the sergeant at arms sends forth an amendment and reading it. So, what we're trying to do is just simply say there's really very little or no value to kind of a lash on the dashboard at the Point I'm going to debate it. If you intend to debate the amendment, if you intend be extened the courtesy to explain and debate an amendment, then extend a courtesy to the members to have an opportunity to review it before they're both having to listen to you debate an amendment and read the amendment for the first time. So I think as a general rule, not in every case, there could be amendments that are consensus amendments that the chair would direct members to get the amendments before the body as early as possible so members could be at their desk and review them before they're taken up and recorded vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Final question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his third inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Appreciate the indulgence and of course the question I have is when members decide an amendment on the floor as the result of the debate that we have on the floor. Does that mean that those amendments that are drawn while we're on the floor will not be entertained, or will there be a delay, or will the bill be displaced? Will we have that courtesy, it will be automatically displaced? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I actually do believe that there is merit to the idea of having the bill temporarily displaced, particularly for more complex amendments. Technical amendments, I would argue are probably not one that we need to worry about. But if there are contentious amendments, I do believe that there's something to be said for temporarily displacing the bill, so that members can take a look at the amendment and be prepared to have a debate on the content of the amendment. Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wasn't gonna speak on the bill, but this debate is not organized in any kind of way. But I do notice that we talked, and I think on both sides of this issue, and we've really do have an issue here going on, and I think that we talk around each other and people are not really listening to what each other is saying, because there's so much rhetoric. I have a lot of my friends that really support this bill, and I've tried to get them to understand where they're coming from when they say that they support this bill, and it really does come down to a matter of protection. And I get that. At first I did not think it was the number of people that actually supported that view, but it was all my friends that was a conglomerate of them that had this view of I have to be able to protect myself. And I thought that, you know, the whole notion that another country is going to come and take over our country, and we're going to have a shootout in culdesac that is totally, I didn't get that, I didn't foresee that as happening. But there are people that have that notion. Then there's other people that have a different view of protection, and they're saying I just want to protect myself from the people that might just be in the community. And I certainly get that. And I understand it. I don't think that some people on our side understand that when we're talking about that's where the essence of where comes from. This is on the other side, I don't think that you guys get when we're talking about these gun laws that we're talking about a gun culture that we're trying to stop in terms of the way that the criminals use it, and I know that you guys feel like everybody that has a gun, especially in this law right here, that everybody's going to intend to use it the way that we want to use it. But at the end of the day, we know that the fact that we are 5% of the world's population, and we've got 50% of the world's guns, that that seems to be a little excessive. And when you have that, you have a gun culture. And that is the reason why we also have the highest number of murders, and gun related incidents. And we cannot ignore that to be fact because it is just fact. There's no other way to put it. There's no other statistic that you can come up with. It is factual. We have the highest number of gun balances that anybody in the world. And we can choose to ignore that. We can choose to ignore it just like we can choose to ignore the fact that there's an elementary school sitting there, helpless [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the gentleman would accept a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you not agree, sir, that we can't change a gun culture by taking guns away from the people who observe the law first

And see, thats my point, in sensationalism, nobody's trying to take anybody's guns away. Its one of those sensational arguments that we use just so everybody can get scared and jump up and down at the county convention but its not even close to being true. Nobody's trying to take a gun away. What we're simply saying is that there has to be a way that we deal with culture. The same way that we dealt with smoking, and I'm a smoker. But the because we passed laws in this body and because the country decided that we wanted to break down on it, it changed the culture of smoking. So the people that are coming up at the same age I was coming up are less likely to use cigarettes and to be addicted to cigarettes. That what a culture change can do to the way we think about it. The way we... [Speaker Changes] Follow up. [Speaker Changes] Representative Warren, does the gentleman yield to a follow up? [Speaker Changes] Absolutely. [Speaker Changes] Representative Brandon, in 1984, we enacted a seatbelt law, and at that time I resisted to put on a seatbelt. But now I find that I can't pull out of the garage unless I put my seatbelt on. We changed that culture. But nobody ever tried to beat me to death with a seatbelt. I understand what you're saying, i think. But i disagree with the premise. We do have a gun culture, I'll agree to that, Ill accept that. But we have a gun culture because we've done a lot other things in our society that kind of facility that culture. We've removed some of the self disciplines that come into the normal socialization process of our children and in our society. We've done it through mass media, we've done it through our institutions. And now we have a gun culture. But we also have a gun culture because we have more freedom than any other country in the world. And its gotten to the point that, where as pathetic and sad as it is, if youre going to go to the 7 eleven at ten o clock or eleven o clock at night, you might want to be armed. We have people who are getting killed in burger kings and mcdonalds, its a gun culture. [Speaker Changes] Speaker. [Speaker Changes] Is the gentleman going to state his question? [Speaker Changes] Yeah, so can you tell me how passing laws that restrict an individuals opportunity to carry a gun for self protection is going to help change that culture without killing that person? [Speaker Changes] Representative Warren, I didn't disagree with anything that you said. I didn't disagree with one thing. But my point is, that the culture that we have, this is a comprehensive way that we have to deal with this. We also, I look at it from our standpoint, and we sensationalize it, talking about these mass tragedies that happen. These gun laws don't effect that, and we've gotta be honest about that. It would not protect the kids in Connecticut if we passed these laws. And I am a believer that somebody has to be in that school to stop that gunman. So I believe in doing it in common sense. What happens is, when we both talk at each other, and we don't listen, the kids at the school don't get protected and we still have more guns and nothing ever gets fixed because everybody's yelling you're trying to take my guns away, and yore like oh protect the kids, and its not even the argument. Neither one. Neither one is the argument. The argument is that how do we have... [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] It is with great trepidation that I am going to make an inquiry of the Chair. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker are we still on the bill, or are we wandering around just a little bit? [Speaker Changes] The gentleman's point is well taken. [Speaker Changes] I thought we were talking about gun laws, are we not? [Speaker Changes] If the chair would just indulge this chair over here, the chair would appreciate it. But we're allowing a bit of discussion because the chair does recognize that there was easily 6 or 7 amendments that still easily be being debated right now, before we got to what the chair believes is the final debate. So I'm allowing a little more latitude than normal out of deference to the members who may have referenced some of this in the process of debating some of the amendments. The gentleman's point is well taken. The gentleman would ask members to try and tighten their comments just because the hour is late and the chair intends to get through the entire calendar before we leave today. [Speaker Changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I was responding to a question that was asked to me. But I do think that the whole entire question has to do with everything that part of the bill, which is my point. This bill did not address all of the issues that we wanted to do, so therefore I believe, and I'm gonna conclude with my comments, but I do believe that at some point when we're heaving the gun debate, that we would stop the sensationalizing of this debate, stop yelling you're taking away my guns, stop yelling that we gotta protect people that the law doesn't really, if we did it, its not gonna really protect people. Lets have a really good debate on what's going...

again to make sure that we stop having a culture that we have made the people of annexes of his offer of a culture that has used his comments as one-size pickup and still had a hand and those of us have independent and every time out to them and an open process is Monday, Boston’s in a sensational us is that the way that I made them are as long as is the point is 108 and it might have been very supportive time to comment on making this fire personnel of Broadway station purpose has hired a question in our separate islands and reinstall mail to WS-managed to get your act that there has a smartly for all of his business has the option of time, the life of the development and CNN Center, stands up 80% as second- well as genuine down as the time is the party has done in half -day, USA United Nations Office of the spin, ?? DC, that they say the debate in an effort to his 17 points in the ?? in the eight-day of the U.N.'s For a site that makes 1/2¢ for the same time low-end if end is a consummate politician this mistake as the trial has been hired as members are a whole are meant to last place the savings of state residents likely stage I'm Scott is the chairman of the city more your own question resident had a study of ?? one of his and U.S. representative of the fact is, six amendments and may the state of the winery have and while it is not the Reds in Moreno division that acted we have a case before trial is the contact one of the war of the recently departed this one is invited to submit a question about time saving lives and one of the vessel, more members and it's not always there, but lights on and from one to chairman says pasting of the substance of nine as any other as wide as one was times longer question institute place last person tells PlayStation purpose because it said he's done for has made bill sends a ?? is slated for united pointed out that was a sense of the house was once a decision, is the date, time the season-high star a site which is widely adopted the conference places of the country in a time of the estimated 91.6 on a resume this debate in this city, time is unsolicited $1000 will be rolled out where done a visit Peking as speaker items, 0:41 for higher on the street at an immediate threat is making response was seasons represent the citizens ?? a city today about this deal has headed the west college campuses ?? abuse the president calls it wasn't easy answers one wasn't and universities and will ?? the six years again on April 16, 2007 interesting is that the last other senior point shooter at least a dozen people at 917 dollars at a residence for a site and the selected as a base caring about messier said one that can scan the designing all white satin of the number of calls Woodstock scene with a taste of tiled ?? ?? ??.............

Those 49 victims of that crime from the ability to carry a gun, because they were law abiding citizens. Ladies and gentlemen, it is my opinion that if they had had the ability to have conceal carry and to be carrying a weapon ion that campus at that time, many of those victims would be alive today. That’s what this debate is all about. I understand that there’s differences of opinion. The University President is entitled to his opinion and you’re entitled to your opinion and I’m entitled to mine, and the voters of this State are entitled to their opinions. But, it is the opinion of the majority and I believe that the reason this will pass today. It’s what I said earlier, had there been conceal carry had those students at Virginia Tech had the ability to defend themselves. Had that shooter known that those victims could have been carrying a gun even if they weren’t, I believe that many of them would be alive today. And ladies and gentlemen for that reason, I will be voting for this bill. Representative Blass/g please state your purpose. [Speaker _change] Speak on the bill. [Speaker _change] The gentlemen recognize to abate the bill. [Speaker _change] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, really it is a sad day for this House when I’ve got to get up an explain a simple stickman argument that is self-explanatory, but it does go to the heart of this bill, the explanation. In the first frame, the good guys have guns and the bad guys have guns. The bad guys don’t use those guns, because they know the good guys have guns. So, it restrains the bad guys and it makes the use of any gun unnecessary. That’s what this bill is designed to try to do. In the second frame, the good guys don’t have guns. The bad guys know there aren’t. There’s gun free zones. There’s easy pickings so the bad guys take a step toward the good guys with their guns out. That’s what we don’t want and this bill, it should be pointed out and emphasized it deals only with concealed carry permit holders. It’s not letting everybody and their brother come on a campus, go into a restaurant or do anything with guns unless they have a concealed carry permit in which they are thoroughly vetted and have a great history of law abiding practice form our concealed carry holders. In the original conceal carry debate, there was prediction from the same quarters of gun fights at high noon at the Okay Coral, same thing we’re hearing now and it did not transpire. You can trust the law abiding people. Some of the representatives are right, there are already guns on the campuses. There are already guns on the walking trails. There are already guns in the park. This puts some doubt into the minds of would be criminals that I could get resistance and the criminologists and the law enforcement people tell ya’, they look for easy pickings. They’ll move on if they think someone is gonna put up resistance. So, it’s common sense as far as park schools, it’s only in a car, it’s not, you can’t carry the permit holder, can’t carry the weapon around campus. It, it’s common sense because it makes it easy to drive up, you don’t have to drive home first or drive somewhere else and leave your concealed carry weapon if you’re somewhere else. If you are taking a class at night, you can just drive from work to the, to the campus. So, it makes it easy to… [Speaker _change] Representative [inaudible] please, the gentleman will yield. Representative Ford/g please state your purpose. [Speaker _change] Mr. Speaker I may be out of order but can we call for the previous question? [Speaker _change] Sir you are out of order, but the uh, even though the gentleman still has the floor, Representative [Inaudible]. [Speaker _change] And, I, I am finished Mr. Speaker before that, that happened but I, I would hope that if his wish gets granted, we don’t hear later that the question got called by you guys. [Speaker _change] Representative R, please state your purpose. [Speaker _change] Speak on the bill. [Speaker _change] The gentlemen are ready now to debate the bill. [Speaker _change] I heard it reiterated over and over today that if law abiding concealed permit holders

Are allowed to leave their guns, locked in their cars on campuses. That they would be the source of increased crimes and violence. I reject that notion. Analyses properly laid on those criminals and those who would do harm, not on the law abiding citizen. I would say that that’s a result of a biased against concealed carry permit holders. Where ever else do we limit the rights and freedoms of law abiding citizens because of the possible actions of the criminals? This bill affords law abiding, properly permitted concealed carry permit holders to carry their weapons in a proper and lawful manner. And I reject the notion that any crime or violence associated with that should be laid at their feet, rather than the criminals who have perpetrated crimes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Riddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill a second time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move for the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is out of order and once again, to paraphrase Representative Starnes, my heart is with you but my gavel cannot be. Representative Riddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Colleagues, I just want to make plain, my amendment has been referred to several times in the course of this lengthy debate. I wholeheartedly support this bill, without my amendment. This is a good bill. I stand behind it 100%, and I encourage all of my colleagues to do the same. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. I’m just kidding. Question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 937 on its third reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 78 having voted in the affirmative, 42 in the negative. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 937 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I had a button malfunction on House Bill 734 I’d like to be recorded as voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted no on House Bill 734. Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Health and Human Services Committee that was previously scheduled for 15 minutes after session today is cancelled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And ladies and gentlemen, we have quite a bit of business left on the agenda as well. We will take announcements at a later time unless there is one that is appropriate for planning. House Bill 101 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 101. A bill to be entitled an act to appeal the estate tax. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And Members of the House, I am happy to tell you this is a very straight forward bill. I do, however have 15 minutes of materials prepared. In the essence of time, I will be try to net it out, but happy to answer all of your questions. As the title indicates, this bill will repeal the death tax. That is it. Prior to this year, if we had repealed the death tax, it would not have benefited our tax payers in North Carolina because of the federal law. With the fiscal cliff deal that was made in December, that law has changed and so now the federal law for the death tax does not take a full 100% credit for what they would have paid in North Carolina. So in essence, if we do not make this change, we will have a tax increase for those people who are affected by the estate tax. This is brought forward mainly for those folks in agriculture, and as you know agriculture is the number 1 industry in North Carolina and our family farmers are hard-working people and we need to protect the investment that they’ve made and the savings that they have done over the years to pass things onto their children and not have to break up the land and sell it off in order to pay a death tax. It is also very good for economic development. North Carolina is the only state in the region that continues to have a.

F tax Tennessee has one that is going off the books in 2016. Otherwise none of our neighboring states have this tax. Very simple to eliminate it we've gone through a lot of proposals on tax reform that we will work through that are complicated it will be nice to have something simple where we can take the cost of having to deal with this off the table from the state I commend the bill to you and ask for your full support[SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Lucas please state the purpose[SPEAKER CHANGES]speak briefly on the bill[SPEAKER CHANGES]gentlemen has the floor[SPEAKER CHANGES]thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house first of all, this should not be referred to as a D tax it is an estate tax furthermore it is to be exact it is a tax on a estate with value of over five million dollars if you were a single person and a tax on an estate more than 10 million dollars if you were a couple So let's be straight on how few people in NC will be affected by this. It is not accurate after reading this with my colleague Representative Martin it is not accurate to say this is about saving NC farms if you do any research on this tax you'll find that this tax on 10 million dollar estates was only paid by 23 families last year 23 families and these 23 families were so wealthy that they paid the state of NC 50 million dollars so when you vote yes on this bill you are giving 23 families 50 million dollars and just for one think about that pre K bill that we just passed[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker will reduce eligibility and what it was one of the[SPEAKER CHANGES]representative thank you[SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Stevens please state your purpose[SPEAKER CHANGES]gentlemen ?? I'm trying to be brief thank you thank you ..... arguments made on Thursday we were told one of the reasons why we couldn't maintain the wide eligibility to help more people young people with the Pre K program was because we didn't have the money. Well friends here is 50 million dollars right here per year all you got to do is send this bill back to committee and we'll have 50 million dollars more in availability the bill should go back to appropriations where it can be part of the general budget debate as how much tax revenue we need fee revenue and how much appropriations we want to make it's a mistake to have the bill on the floor but certainly it is important and I'll stop with this remember you are giving 23 families 50 million dollars and if you can defend that to your constituents I love to hear it thank you urge you to vote against the bill or support this motion to send it to appropriations thank you

and pan sizes, he said on Monday of finance for ?? be semi-hero want to be able to have him here in time for me she makes an issue of the light for ages of 16 riled and that this bill is about a disability else she family farmers in your lifetime the height of the things that this is an actual fire of seeing the people of her of time and as for years to finish its Allies and we are key states-half an hour's sheet that tradition alive and still out there North Carolina of the people in multimedia studios with homeland for me, I haven't seen this week of cash in Biloxi to be able to transfer the form from one generation to the next riled it's often more for the heritage of the study is certainly important to the family farms commission that we have enormous to see them from time to design is a copy of a decent citizen and mike ??ers added 14 points into purpose to the state of the pstn bills-question person party of ?? U.S. Of medicine and he said the system protects family farms of-age as states last year that he has signed the city for many dollars as well as the next is weekend of them, has been taken aback some of that-that is one time and CNN at the dancing and anti-piracy 96 you are in the eye so you have no comment is 16 times, and-copy you on any of the NFL seasons for about 10 visit India one of his us this question has happened that, tiled the claim that the latest attacks and commerce is just completely happens that, if anyone has and offices, eight of them to make the right, access on the estate investments in and out of stocks and bonds in the intensive in this and have the vision is up and the highest in the antibiotics the west end of this is not valid, but often some ideas, and that hasn't been the opposite in-a-lot to them, time event-expediting off, and the question I tell them that the FTP-taxes and his timing and languages behind the December, the print edition of asphyxiation name a couple of it back over to a maintains the 19th district, the better of defense for Esther time have enacted *-hand pane, more here are the white sedan and testimony in his trailer tactics that he are as eager as you are takes up to a printer is dry are no longer have the flexibility to 24 innings and she's in Tainan as its director of the city's movement on the events and culture in enacting our inside the station and he'll say the Jackson-people who are many Japanese Times and acted as a kid this chain-if you have on-the-I look up to the student activities even answer that question, that the daily powers are actually infected by-exile achieve a consensus about taxpayers' funds we have in common that was the intent of the facts, days inn-high living index of the man has not made the statement above the top- in-the-the-stack copy of this and then, ?? day, of accent, the center and have enough-sensitive as I message for person see ??..

[Speaker changes.].....state your purpose? [Speaker changes.] Wanted to see the gentleman would yield for a question? [Speaker changes.] Representative Queen, do you yield? [Speaker changes.] I will. [Speaker changes.] Representative Queen, when these people...if they are massive landowners and they're getting this exemption when they have a death...during the course of their life, haven't they paid a lot in property taxes? [Speaker changes.] You do pay property taxes to your county government year after year. [Speaker changes.] Follow up? [Speaker changes.] Representative Queen, do you yield? [Speaker changes.] I do? [Speaker changes.] And, as these individuals have earned income and purchased property and bought things, have they not been taxed on that income? [Speaker changes.] I don't...I think every dollar any of us spend is a after-tax dollar so, if I buy stocks today, or if I buy a car or anything ...anybody in this room, only spends an after-tax dollar so they're no different...rich people from anybody else in that regard. [Speaker changes.] Correct but in...? [Speaker changes.] But if they buy a equity-building asset, like a stock or a bond or property...and it appreciates over time, they get to defer the income gains until a sales event or if they make more than they spend for their whole life and they die, then that is the sales event. So they pay their taxes on that gain like anybody else does and they have had the entire, year-after-year of tax-deferred benefits that working people who are just paying for their hourly wage or whatever, never receive so it's a benefit of managing wealth that many regular wage earners never get to participate in and that's one of the reasons, the rich get richer and the workin' man just pays more taxes. Because if we give the rich people these kinds of exceptional...two million dollars a piece...tax break, somebody else has to pick up the freight for this early childhood bill we just worked on this afternoon or funding our universities or economic development or any of the other things that require revenue so, whenever you give the wealthy a "buy" on their taxes, somebody else picks up the freight or they drop the services and benefits. [Speaker changes.] Mister Chairman, would the speaker yield? [Speaker changes.] I will. [Speaker changes.] Representative Queen yields. Representative Ramsey, you have the floor. [Speaker changes.] Repre...Senator Queen, are you familiar with a little organization in North Carolina called North Carolina Farm Bureau? [Speaker changes.] I am...I'm a member. [Speaker changes.] Follow up? [Speaker changes.] Gentleman yield? [Speaker changes.] Yep. [Speaker changes.] Do you understand what North Carolina Farm Bureau's position is on this bill? [Speaker changes.] I think they're in favor of it. [Speaker changes.] One more follow up. [Speaker changes.] Gentleman yield? [Speaker changes.] Would it be the position of Representative Queen that North Carolina Farm Bureau only represents the rich and wealthy in this state? [Speaker changes.] In this respect, I would say yes. I am a member and they have met with me and I have an estate tax problem and they've explained to me that they can definitely take care of me, not to worry. That's one of their member services. That's why I don't know of a single farmer who can aff...who's ??????? five million dollar estate that can't afford an accountant. My accountant told me whatever it is, we can shelter three times the amount. Just plan on that but you oughta' make the plan ahead of time and most wealthy people who make plenty of money, have plenty of accountants and they make plenty of plans ahead of time to shelter income. We, as a legislature, just need to be fair that everybody pays their fair share of taxes...that's all I am saying. This is unbelievably unfair when you give one group of the wealthiest, most successful citizens who the whole economy works very well for...a two million dollar break and the poor kid who can't get...the poor citizen who can't get his child in daycare....early childhood development services is cut because there's no revenue. So I just try to add a little common sense to this. How many people would twenty-three out of nine million be?? I mean...that's.... [Speaker changes.] ? [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

Ratio of who pays this it's un incredibly unfair I think it's 1 or 2 in a thousand even get to have a 5 day dollar in state. So I urge you to think about fairness and vote against this bill thank you. [SPAEKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPAEKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the bill. [SPAEKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPAEKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members this is a bill long overdue and I want to compliment the Lady from Wilson for filing this bill. This is something that will do a lot to help folks in this state, the family farmers the middle class those who work hard and playing by the rules and trying to have something to save to leave to their descendants, now that been said Mr. Speaker. if I can be recognized for motion. [SPAEKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPAEKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker may I hear the previous question. [SPAEKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves the previous question. Those who in favor of moving previous question therefore ending the debate on House bill 101 will vote aye all oppose vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 72 have voted in the affirmative 43 in the negative. The motion passes according to the rule the minority leader or the majority leader has the option of a moment up to three minutes. Members I may know that there were several lights on but there were the time when Representative Moore put the question there were no lights on for the minority carcass. However the three minute allocation is still available by rule. Representative Hall please state your purpose. [SPAEKER CHANGES] Speak for three minute. [SPAEKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to speak for three minutes. [SPAEKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I would have yield my time to representative Moore but he is busy right now so I will go ahead and speak for these issues of before so as we talk about what is gonna be 1st of all whether or not folks of middle class who would be taken advantage of this tax cut we should be so lucky that the average middle class family of North Carolina whatever the definition is would constitute a family that had a 5 million plus dollar in state there will be a transfer from 1 generation to next. Second of all when we think about money over 50 million dollars and revenues that would come out of the funds of North Carolina the question becomes how many teacher accessed how much free care how much teacher's assistance how much access to education of we allocate. How much are we losing as far accessed to Medicaid? What is its costing is because we certainly half cut up budget down as much as we can do. I am sure that everyone will say that it was there the effort of last cycle to cut the budget as much as they could. So now there is an additional 50 million dollars as you saying is gonna be this place from somewhere and we have already taken the teacher out we have already taken the earned income tax credit away thousands of North Carolinians and now we gonna say we have comprehensive tax reform but we say before we do that thus people have little been here on the side are 5 million dollar plus States that are middle class North Carolinians but at what price again how many teachers how many teacher's assistance how many people accessed the health care where are we gonna passing this from and who will needs this as a benefit and I am sure everyone will say let's not have any taxes at all this all come here for free this let it free for everything no one pays the roles no one pays the traffic signal all just have or for free and we know it's not that way so again I urge you to vote against this if we have gonna do comprehensive tax reforms let's do that let's not do it piece meal and single out individuals don't have the stand the tax rest of North Carolinians and get a special exemption for paying their fair share. [SPAEKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes please state your purpose or representative Starnes gentleman is recognized for period not to exceed three.

soon may delegate that three-minute periods any of them run the floor. the speaker lays in general, the house issues, then, well debated points been made on both sides that we are hope that we can live to see the day everybody as an estate tax problem. I hope that some of the policies of this General assembly will restart prosperity, our state. I hope that we can all be in the situation when they were were facing a substantial estate, but I think it is your mistaken when you say that these are all very wealthy people looking like it, and how some of the people in this state have accumulated wealth. all they're doing is they have worked hard. they've saved they've accumulated a home were some Land or farmer. perhaps they've made some investments in some stocks and over a period of years, they've accumulated in value while there we want to punish people for being thrifty and for saving and sacrificing. we were winning to reward these people who are just trying to get ahead and then they just won't be able to leave some of their assets to their children. they worked hard for their families, not from the state of North Carolina. I think this is a good bill much-needed origins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] the question for the houses. the passage of House Bill one oh one on its second reading on paper, but not all of those that know the booklet about our club. she reported about eighty three hundred affirmative thirty six and the negative house. no one I wanted to pass the second reading of that objection didn't object to having and raising the bill remains on the counter. I don't just for your planning purposes. we do intend to go through the entire counter tonight. they think it's all the more so with cross server of approaching us. if the debate on some of the bills coming up along, we may take a brief hour ten minute recess so that you can refresh yourself and potentially get your dinner house: seventy nine article rate is sensitive, Ralph Hill one cent a building [SPEAKER CHANGES] , tied an act exempts certain joint agencies from sales of motor fuel excise taxes Johnson of North Carolina. Xenical radically sacred purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] seventy nine exists in our local agencies form for fire, EMS and police protection from sales tax and motor fuel excess taxes on some of our smaller syntheses syntheses.:-) until SRAM and cities cannot afford these three services by themselves, so they have formed one of my three my count, the foreman inter local agency and they are exempt from these taxes on their own. as cities, but when they haven't let inter local agency. they did not have that exemption. this just gives them that same exemption they would have in our cities more than I asked for your support or the discussion thread about it is not a question for the houses. the presence of the house may substitute as the one seventy nine on its second reading onpaper, but I hope those that notable blip about art watching one hundred sixty nine minutes affirmative and want in the negative. the house presents to does no one seventy nine is passed second reading without objection will be rented, third South Johnson will go [SPEAKER CHANGES] further discuss further debate , not a question of what houses the passage of the House committee since two thousand one seventy nine on its third reading all very say I all present out guys have asked me substitute for hospital one sitting on his passes. the reading will be sent to the Senate, house up to seventeen O [SPEAKER CHANGES] oracle rate reasons you for house builders in the building title back to provide a right of direct appeal to the Court of Appeals for probation revocations in District Court to amend the law pertaining to the sentencing upon reversal of the sentence on appellate review to provide for the transfer of juvenile defendants eight fifteen over despair got been charged with the major criminal dance and required the courts commission to study the

care and shine out lawsuits for misdemeanors and other matters of improving efficiency and administration of justice system Johnson timed last person to call a PlayStation purpose they don't offer has made no idea this maker of ways, a sign of the greatest this is a control procedures and the smell it started out the quiet of them already has announced an update on some fans recommendation discussions and involvement of the smaller cover of sight lines can only end up as one of the conglomerate sponsors and spend time since the deal-questions the deterrent of a diverse to make a change has been with five-district court that it wants permission on, the special Primetime that the speaker of the law of the right direction to the court appeals of the soldier actually have a higher seed data section or actions and existing ordinances from a multimedia corners of life and the loss of life for me to the court of appeals Somoza summer situation as five hopefully cut down on was the only a time traveler the case for the four of section 10 best of it was time, with additional our sensibilities of air force's says some time you borrow another of his sentence was cited as court for an offense that time, just as with NDS boulevard business is this section shall apply when defendant was director of the require all that time, the 20-page ad in the alterations to the display at the content of the event of this section is fraught with runtime along that this is definitely the Udall's of the signing of from one of the student-were-game string of the process of it, and the whole section of the 17 of 30 years later or a time-only the physical as a film to prevent the incorporations and the court, locals and for some trash for the occasion is a bad for control of the case with a loss includes all to the house 30 years of the ?? is the am struggling within the hour is the family's van De-on a positive signal as the one to request the developing time buyers for instance are one of bill and Steve and times of a song that smaller kidnapping and sexual maturation of sexual hands with a channel in addition to his advantage of that class one-class AAA of the one telling of sexual crimes robberies, rapes and-crafts times has a crime and we're about, the event of his 15 years of age for hundred of the crimes committed of the 13 year old ago because if they are time , as well have the most men--send the actor: district Atty. for the prosecutor alleged in the course of confrontations the report of the syndication dolls basically a 15 year olds charged with a major crime and all time and transferred directly to video has appeared for one of the session, I'm a sense of mission and other basic 0:39, was sent for some and is studying the possibility of a permit times excursion to and from misdemeanors of this report them with his mother of the time it is-television , this is a good balance and the changes that will visit the router times more than person Jackson PlayStation purpose auction is the times and sings and the Ide WS the person is in a quizzical 61 of the all rights of you all right place in our appeals history or ?? on Monday when you are saying you appeal case is important as the women's one per outlet because of artistry all ?? usually useful ??.........

Representative Jackson, section one and three go together because both of them, section three also repeals a statute that says how you appeal from district court to superior court. What we're doing is if the person in district court's probation is violated--revoked--instead of giving them three bites of the apple, we're giving them two bites of the apple. In other words, under current law they have the right to appeal the court of appeals, another to appeal to superior court. Here we're cutting out the superior court. And they do have recording equipment, if you'll look at lines 22 and 23, the district courts in fact do, are courts of record. You can get transcripts, they have court reporters in district court--just not in all court rooms at all times. But with the change of this bill, instead of having that action occur twice and then having the court report to superior court and then going up, it'll go straight from one to the other. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're of the opinion that all district courts, every county has a district court that is capable of preparing a proper record on these probation violation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All district courts do, not all district court rooms do. And the reason I say they do, is if you look at subsection C, they have to be able to do that for civil actions, they have it for family court, and they have it for juvenile court, where they have the record prepared from district court directly to the court of appeals. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Like in a county like Wake, where the civil actions are held in court rooms that are full Monday through Friday with recording devices, they would actually have to go add these recording devices to whatever courtroom does probation cases. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's right. They'll have to hold these hearings in one of the courtrooms where they do have a tape recorder, but they would have to do that anyway in a superior court later. We're just cutting out one step. But they may actually have to change which courtroom they send district court probation revocations to, that is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the House, my remarks on this go to what Representative Jackson just raised. In the committee meeting I asked for a report from the court of appeals about accepting directly from the district court, appeals of probation revocations. The first thing they wrote back was that requiring a direct appeal from the district court to the court of appeals will require a record--that is a transcript of the testimony to be made in the district criminal court which has not been a court of record and could prove to be costly. Since the court of appeals would have to review the sufficiency of the evidence to show a violation. And then they further said, "Requiring a direct appeal to the court of appeals will have a financial impact on the appellate defenders office, since that office will have to provide counsel for the appeal." In terms of what it would cost, what the court said was this, at this time they could not make a, they were unable to estimate the number of additional court of appeals judges and staff that may be necessary to handle the number of probation appeal cases that would now be eligible for appeal directly to the court of appeals from district court under this bill. They further go on to say that if the additional appeals filed in the court of appeals were such that additional staff was required to process these cases, three judges and their accompanying support staff, one executive assistant and two research assistants per judge, would need to be created since the court of appeals sits in panels of three judges. This expansion would have a total first year cost of $1,327,425 and $1,254,000 recurring annually thereafter. So, what this is doing is it is adding an additional layer. Now, it works very well the way it is going now. You go to district court, you have your revocation hearing. If the person wants to appeal it, he appeals it to the superior court in that county. If it is heard in, when it is heard....

In Superior Court. The record is made and then that person can appeal it if they want to or if you know they think they have the grounds to the Court of Appeals where the record will follow them. In this instance, and what you have to understand is that in District Civil Court there is a record of appeal and in District Criminal Case there is no record of appeal. I have a question as to this part of the bill and Mr. Speaker, I would object to third reading in order to prepare an amendment to take out that section of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, Representative Michaux having indicated that we will carry this bill over. Indicated objection, therefore we will carry this bill over to third reading. I’d like to make a, just a point for the remainder of the evening. I’ve instructed the clerk to reduce the voting time from fifteen seconds to ten seconds. We’re going to try to move through the agenda as expeditiously as possible and at 6 p.m. depending on how well we have done it, we’ve already carried one bill over that we know is going to be controversial tomorrow I believe, or at least will require debate. So we’ve got more bills to be covered tomorrow that’s why I’m trying to get through as much of the calendar today. So at 6 p.m. we will determine whether or not we will adjourn or recess based upon the progress we make between now and 6 p.m. Further discussion, further debate on the second reading for House Bill 217? Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question for either of the bill sponsors so Representative Faircloth or Stam. I’m just trying. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I’ll be brief. I’m just trying to understand the impact on juvenile proceedings because I know we’ve had several debate on raising the age for which a juvenile can be considered accountable and it looks like in this bill we’re lowering it. And 13 seems awfully young, I’m just wondering if you could explain that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will, it’s not being lowered to 13. Age 13 is currently there for first-degree murderers. That’s not affected by this bill. This bill for 15 year olds has another procedure, but only for those accused of B1 and B2 felonies. And let me clarify what that is, because most B1, B2 felonies can’t even be committed by a 15 year old due to age but it does include second-degree murder, first-degree rape, and first-degree sex offense. That’s really what we’re talking about. Some of the very most serious crimes. And the problem with juvenile court for those folks, is not that the juvenile courts are not wonderful or have just as good judges, just as wise judges as anyone else. The problem is, that at age 21, a juvenile judgment expires and they have to be set free. And a commitment in juvenile court is to an indefinite term, and it’s not even the judges setting them free, but the Department of Public Safety. So you have no idea when they’ll come out for murder or first-degree rape. So the bill, as amended in Committee, and this was Representative Glazier amendment, is limited to those 15 year olds who commit the very most serious crime and the DA wants to seek more punishment than the juvenile court can possibly give. Let me clarify one other thing if I could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On Section 1, this does not add an additional layer of appeal. It reduces a layer of appeal. There is no extra appeal cost. There’s reduced appeal cost because there’s one less appeal. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 217. All in favor, vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 92 having voted in the affirmative, 25 in the negative. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 217 has passed its second reading and the, Representative Michaux has stated an objection to third reading. There is a possibility that an amendment will be drafted and he will remove that objection if that’s necessary so that we can dispose of it today. For now it remains on the calendar. House Bill 402 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 402, a bill to be an entitled, an act to allow tri-care.

...supplement for flexible compensation plans offered by the state. General Senate of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Szoka please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, bottom line up front this bill will save some of our eligible state employees money on their monthly health insurance premiums and potentially can save the state twenty million dollars or more every year. TriCare Primary is military insurance that all military retirees receive when they retire from the military. Active duty receive it upon retirement. Reservists receive it at age sixty after twenty years of service. Many military retirees have second careers as state employees. In the year 2007 approximately four thousand military retirees were serving the state in a second career. TriCare supplemental is an optional supplemental insurance plan that must be administered by the employer and pays virtually one hundred percent of all deductibles and co-pays not covered by TriCare primary. Prior to 2007 North Carolina did offer TriCare supplemental to its employees who were military retirees. Due to a change in federal law in 2007 we're not able to do that. As I said approximately four thousand state employees use that option of TriCare and TriCare supplemental as their primary health insurance and they had to drop it in 2007. Recent change in federal law allows us to offer that again. And as I said we'll be able to save employees much money. An example a military employee and his spouse currently paying on the eighty twenty plan six hundred six dollars a month with TriCare primary and TriCare supplemental would pay a hundred and thirty two dollars for savings of approximately four hundred and seventy five dollars a month. So I think that's very significant for our employees who are eligible for this. Additionally when you roll up the numbers if we have at least four thousand it's about twenty million dollars in savings for the state healthcare plan. Nobody knows right now how many military retirees are actually state employees which is why there's not a fiscal note with this bill. There is no opposition to this bill. There is however a friendly amendment and Representative Jeter will present that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter moves to mend the bill on page one lines fourteen and thirty and on page two line fourteen by deleting each instance of the following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As someone who operates a trucking company for a living I've never understood the severity of the difference between may and shall. Spending time in a chamber with attorneys you learn that difference very quickly. This language actually enforces I think what Representative Szoka said. It mandates it versus allowing it. Without the mandation of the shall I think the bill loses some teeth. As Representative Szoka said he supports the amendment and I would encourage its passage. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the amendment. If not the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Jeter for House bill four oh two. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. One hundred eighteen having voting affirmative. None in the negative the amendment passes. We're back on the bill. Further discussion further debate. Representative Cunningham please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I need a no vote on House bill two seventeen. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as having voting no. Ladies and gentlemen again keep in mind that the vote machine is now set at ten seconds versus fifteen seconds. Further discussion further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of House bill four oh two is admitted on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. One hundred and fifteen having voted affirmative. One in the negative. House bill four oh two is submitted as passed its second reading without objection. It will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Senate of North Carolina [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of House bill four oh two as submitted on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House bill four oh two is admitted as passed its third reading. The bill will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. House bill four oh five. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Read substitute for House bill four oh five. The bill is entitled an act to provide that any justice or judge of the general court of justice of the state of North Carolina, administrative law judge, or clerk of superior court who has a concealed hand gun permit as valid in North Carolina exempt from the general prohibition against carrying a concealed weapon and from the prohibitions against carrying a weapon on certain premises or in certain circumstances. General Senate of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeil please state...

purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, fellow Representatives. This General Assembly, in prior sessions, passed a a General Statute 14-415.21, to allow district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, and their investigators, who a concealed weapons permit to carry concealed weapons in areas that were normally prohibited by General Statute 14-269. This bill simply adds judges, and judges of North Carolina, and clerks of court in North Carolina, and administrative law judges in North Carolina to that list. This bill has been supported by judges, the clerks conference and administrative law judges. These important and respected officials deserve to be allowed to protect themselves. They are called upon every day to make controversial decisions for the public god that place them in personal jeopardy. This received a favorable report in Judiciary C, after some spirited debate, but was passed with some bi-partisan votes. I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee substitute to House Bill 405 on its 2nd reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 110 having voted in the affirmative, 8 in the negative. The House Committee substitute to House Bill 405 has passed its 2nd reading will be read a 3rd time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]General Assembly of North Carolina in acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee substitute to House Bill 405 on its 3rd reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee substitute to House Bill 405 has passed its 3rd reading and will be sent to the Senate. Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, I'd like to withdraw my objection to the 3rd reading on House Bill 217. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The objection to have the vote thrown, is there further objection to reading House Bill 217, the House Committee substitute to House Bill 217 for a 3rd time? If not, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]General Assembly of North Carolina in acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. Does the gentleman have an amendment he wishes to send forth? [SPEAKER CHANGES]No Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Per the explanation. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]We looked at another way of taking care of this. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee substitute to House Bill 217 on its 3rd reading. All in favor say aye, all opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee substitute to House Bill 217 has passed its 3rd reading and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 505, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Committee substitute to House Bill 505, a bill to entitle and acts to codify and make permanent, the program of inspections of certain animal operations by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. General Assembly of North Carolina in acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Waddell is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, I know we've had a long debate today, and I promised my fellow Representative up here, Floyd, i wouldn't bore you with all the details, but I do appreciate the chance to speak before sunset. House Bill 505 is an attempt to simply codify an existing program by the Division of Soil and Water Conservation. The present program was started as a pilot in 1997 to stay the feasibility of having the Division of Soil and Water do the annual inspections of all concentrated animal feeding operations, in an area to be determined by the Division of Soil and Water. It was also in conjunction with North Carolina Department of Water Quality. It was briefly assigned to 2 counties, Pender and Columbus, it was expanded to include Jones and Brunswick counties. The Division of Soil and Water Conservation has always been provided the technical expertise as to the best management practices which include conservation measures and nutrient management along with lagoon design, they are responsible for design of nutrient management plans or animal waste plans. The thinking was, and still should be that the Division of Soil and Water did the operations review in preparations for the annual inspections and they would be in a better position to make suggestions to changes or improvements of ongoing swine operations. If North Carolina DWQ did the annual inspection, a farmer would have to go to the Division of Soil and Water for help, or be knowledgeable on their own for making required adjustments or mitigate the violation. The bill in no way.

Place in the regulatory authority of the North Carolina DWQ. In all noted deficiency or violations are unnoted in ?? or ?? information management systems. If violations are found at the farm they are forwarded to DWQ for record keeping and enforcement action. This bill simply allows ?? to observe the operations in determining if the farm is in compliance with the provisions of senate bill 1217, and if not an additional note of deficiency on the reporting form can provide assistance immediately on ways to mitigate the proficiency. All the farmers in the participating counties are very pleased with the way this has worked and I urge and ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members of the body, this is a very successful pilot. It needs to be made permanent. I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Any further discussion? Any further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute of house bill 505 on it's second reading. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk ?? machine will record the vote. 111 have voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The house committee substitute, bill 505, has passed it's second reading, without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] General assembly of North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion? Further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of house committee substitute to house bill 505 on it's third reading. All in favor say Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] All opposed say no. The Aye's have it. The house committee substitute to house bill 505 has passed it's third reading. Will be sent to the senate. House bill 585, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] ?? for house bill 585, to build ?? all correctional facilities, juvenile facilities, and local confinement facilities in this state shall comply with the provisions of the federal prison rape elimination act EREA. General assembly of North Carolina enact. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The prison rape elimination act was unanimously passed by congress and was signed into law in 2003. The law restricts where youth can be placed in adult prisons to decrease rape and suicide. It's a good bill, I don't know of anyone opposed to it. I'd like to be recognized to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Lewis, looks to amend the bill on page 1, lines 2 and 3 by rewriting those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I got contact from the sheriff association, they expressed concern, not with the intent of the bill or they're intent to comply, just that in the way that section 3 of the bill was written, so I agreed with them just to remove section 3 and I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion or further debate on the amendment? If not the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Lewis for the house committee substitute of house bill 585. All in favor vote Aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk ?? machine recorded the vote. 118 voting in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment passes, we are now back on the bill. Further discussion or further debate on the bill as amended. If not the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute of house bill 585 on it's second reading. All in favor vote Aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk ?? machine recorded the vote. 117 having voted affirmative, none in the negative. The house committee substitute of house bill 585 has passed it's second reading. The amendment did change the title, so it will remain on the calender. House bill 611, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 611, the bill to ?? an act to require the division of motor vehicles expunge suspensions or reputations entered on the limited provisional licensee's driving record if the student provides the required documentation to the division that the student meets the eligibility requirements and if the limited permitee or provisional licensee's has never had a prior expunging from the permitee's driving record. General assembly of North Carolina, Indianapolis. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Brawley, is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The explanation of the bill is quicker than the title. A 16 year old gets a drivers license, pulls bad grades, and losing it. They get their grades up

they get their license back, but there's a revocation on their record. There was one question in committee that it didn't clearly state it was limited to the loss of the license for grades, there is an amendment that I would like to send forth at this time to correct that deficiency. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth and amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative W. Brawley moves to amend the bill on page one, line 29, through page two, line two, by rewriting those lines to read [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With the amendment it clarifies that this only works for someone who lost their license for grades and did not get in any other trouble while driving without their license. So I would appreciate support on the amendment and the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Brawley for House bill 611. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 119 having voted the affirmative and none to the negative, the amendment passes. We're now back on the bill. Further discussion or further debate on the bill as amended? If not the question before the House is the passage of the House bill 611 as amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 118 having voted the affirmative, none to the negative, the House bill 611 as amended has passed its second reading without objection and will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina in action [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House bill 611 as amended on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House bill 611 as amended has passed its third reading. It will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. Representative McGrady, does the gentleman wish to be recorded as having voted aye on the second reading of 611? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You anticipated it, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye. House bill 687. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House bill 687, a bill to be entitled an act to require billing code council to mend North Carolina billing code to allow occupants younger than 18 in temporary overflow emergency shelters for the homeless. General Assembly of North Carolina in action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister, 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. Temporary homeless shelters are exempt from requirements for certain fire safety features such as irrigation systems. These temporary shelters are operated by non-profits, and they are usually situated in churches, but temporary shelters are only exempt from these requirements if the occupants are 18 years of age or older. This means that minors are not allowed to stay in temporary shelters, even if they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. This bill would allow minors to stay at a temporary shelter, provided they are accompanied by a parent or legal guardian. The department of insurance requested that we add a provision to require smoke detectors in sleeping areas, which we added to section 3 of the bill. I do not know of any opposition and I would appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to House bill 687 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 119 having voted the affirmative, none to the negative, the House committee substitute to House bill 687 has passed it's second reading without objection. It will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina in action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to House bill 687 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House committee substitute to House bill 687 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to skip ahead on the calendar to House bill 785 without objection. The clerk will read. I'm sorry, House bill 755. Without objection, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House bill 755. The bill is to be entitled an act to amend certain department of environment and natural resources notice requirements to authorize electronic notification and direct the department of environment and natural resources to identify other notification requirements in statute or rule for which electronic notice may be adequate. General Assembly of North Carolina in action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker for keeping me on my toes. This bill came about following the environment committee's meeting with Secretary Skavala. He made a pitch for protecting the environment, but seeing if there are ways to be more efficient.

And what we have here is a bill that is really int he nature of pilot program to allow some range of notices that the department does to go out in electronic form. The original bill sent over by Deener was broader than the bill I introduced. And the bill that comes to you today is narrower than the one I introduced. Representative Harrison made a few amendments to my bill and I'm perfectly fine with them. We just narrowed it and we're gonna make it a test. And so I would ask your support for electronic notice. I would add that the most fun debate I've had in my limited time in the house occurred on this bill with the help of the rules chair and I hope that we have that sort of fun some other time but not on this bill today. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dixon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members of the house, I'm gonna oppose this, I'm gonna vote no because there is a larger issue that we're talking about here. And the issue is how we're going to in the future transition public notice. This has the potential, if we don't do it properly, to hurt a lot of small town newspapers and rural newspapers and rural North Carolina. I guess i'll use the cliche and say that this is an attempt to get the camels nose under the tent. I think we need to look at the bigger issue and be ready to seriously debate how we're going to transition to public notice and I do not think that this is the way to do it. And I'm gonna urge you to vote against this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] I too find it necessary to rise in to opposition to this bill. Not really because of the newspapers and the loss of income to them which is a factor. What we're actually doing here is becoming very insular, on one hand we talk about transparency with government and making everything visible. But here we're having the department report on its website and to a select group of people who may be following the issue more than the general public does. Whereas when you put a notice in the newspaper, whether deliberately or accidentally people see those notices who might not go to the deener website nor would they be signed up for email notification. I think its a bad president when we cut the press out of the publics access to knowledge. Its not something i feel like should be taken lightly. The issue of saving the state money or cost of newspaper are valid arguments however i feel like the public's right to know through notice given by watch dog organization is necessary to eliminate any unforeseen unintended consequences, could cause damage in un-speculated upon locations at this point in time. And I sincerely ask that you oppose this legislation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The house be at ease. Without objection this bill will be temporarily displaced. House bill 716 The clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 716. The bill to be entitled an act to prohibit a person of performing or attempting to perform an abortion when the sex of the unborn child is significant factor in seeking the abortion ?? of North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, this will be the last bill bill on the calendar. Of the conclusion of this bill we will adjourn for the day. Representative...

Simply state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Members we all know that abortion is a subject that often brings up a lot of debate and discussion. However, abortion for the purpose of sex selection seems to bring no debate. Over 75% of the people who were polled on this question believe that abortion for the purpose of sex selection should not actually even be legal. So what this bill does, is it simply says that, if a doctor knows the primary purpose or a significant reason for the woman seeking an abortion is sex selection, he or she is not supposed to perform the abortion. If this bill passes, abortion will still be legal, abortion will still be safe, abortion will just no longer be discriminatory. Mr speaker, Representative Schaffer has an amendment to send forward that addresses some of the concerns that were brought up in committee to clarify and deal with some issues on wording and if you would call on her, she will send forth the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Schaffer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Schaffer moves to amend the bill on page 1 lines 15 through 36 by rewriting those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker, as representative Samuelson said, this amendment really clarifying amendment to answer some of the questions that were raised, the concerns that were raised in the committee, and to really reflect what the intent of this bill is. I'll draw your attention first to lines 4 through 7 some of the changes there, really clean up some of the language. There were some concerns about the word "recklessly", we are focused on the knowledge of the doctor or his reason to know whether he knew or should have known, so we are restating that. As for subsection B there, lines 8 through 10. What we have there is in response to a concern that this bill would place an affirmative duty on a doctor to ask his or her patient why she is coming in for an abortion. What this does is it says that there is no affirmative duty. Again, this bill is simply based on the doctor's actual knowledge or whether he or she had the objective reason to know. The rest of the changes there are simply conforming to the rest of the amendment, so we urge your support in this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The members who have their lights on, are they to speak about the amendment or the bill? Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. Representative Deborah Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. I appreciate this amendment. There are other things that I wish would get amended in this bill, but some of the issues that came up in JA are addressed here, and so I encourage folks to vote for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady will be recognized in turn for the further discussion and debate on the amendment. If not the question before the house is to pass it to the amendment sent forth by representative Schaffer for the house committee substitute of house bill 716. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allow the machine record the vote. 118 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the amendment passes. We are back on the bill, representative Adams please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Speak on the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES]First of all may I ask the bill sponsor a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Samuelson, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you representative Samuelson, I saw the survey that you sent out but I have a question; how many legal abortions are performed in North Carolina, based on gender discrimination. Based on the woman indicating that she needs an abortion because she's having a boy as opposed to a girl, or vice versa? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I have no way of knowing that, because we do not keep track of those, nobody records those sorts of figures. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, the issue of sex selection abortion is a legitimate concern I suppose, but in other parts of the world, not in North Carolina. As a matter of fact, you have a survey, but of course if you've done any kind of research at all you know that you can skew the data and you can set up a survey to basically get back what you want. But in this case, there has been no evidence, and I heard this bill in committee, there's no evidence that there's any kind of...(speech ends)

time in a seven- and-sex selection, since it was a day at the scene, said bill weapons at the LAN has to be sent any of the day and tested the multitude of how to an action show up at the dining hall, that they would now it must also allows it's been almost a fulltime difference between an indeterminate sentence than the summit of the 14-and-operations identify the other is not that was not this to happen from time to stop the sun has a raise in a committee as well as the defending its inspections that the intestine, one of the Sunday comics, one of the problem is the time the Seattle, he wanted, so that's the way there is perhaps Sunday and freshman standout happens in a possible and riled , we have a happy is in position now questioning the lives of these women of all Minneapolis and an opposite-be buyers to within the navy has, and the media that this will be willing to take that have been styled the CNN since been fined up to one of 2000, has and has a stable at lackey and forties when the company and the laughing, as he did not that to care for these women the holiday that has a long time and honesty and won the highest-through that you had when he acts will be financed in still be condescending as well as a method that has not been as I read in today, some of these classes and other people talk about the smell of what happens and lives and his attack is not possible to this is not a life without the me-we want to attack the stands and have been known to be able to stay inside the city and South Carolina me as couple of times a day, fact is that we just not enough year, with activity and was into the time the sun, has been made for an event that is it would not abandon the cells of the enough to not let us know that you something at the scene with the death of the time is Monday, is that science and as well as a mailing well, activates that sponsors and CEO west and cannot be discontinued end of the other confidence that his agency-bills that they have been adopted the loss ended the best times when domestic bonds and not, 79, and that lies and can support dance parties and without Danny and the whole time this season-long that will seek we have had installed and women as of the active support person about the station purposes, and actually owns the site at the time is 1901 AM at the statements of what the club was his state is not of enough to have sex is one another in a loss since it is now lives in 19 70, at the site is about an investment is also eyeing the fact that his two-out is that only the portions and I mean is that this is just another was an exam, also from the mountain of his status as in the standings in cleanup and -desist in a statement in the economy has not have been updated once times as life, and backing up was in progress this is a wealth in CS: I'll it's not money it's all about being the pope was in the high end of the agency that has not yet been set questions in China person plus PlayStation purpose see archived at the offer question of the late U.S. ??........

Representative Adams, I have looked the bill carefully and my question is where in this bill do you see anyone or any particular group targeted? I just can't; reading the bill I just can't find it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, representative Blust, I think the bill was heard in your committee, and there was discussion about that. And when you talk about discrimination if we're talking about making sure that we say the fetus, babies are not discriminated because they are male or because they are female. That's what, I've heard the bill sponsors ?? use that language so I'm using it as well.It was used throughout the committee. We say that we want to protect women. This bill does not do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Deborah Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much mister speaker. I have two primary objections to this bill, one of them was made a little bit better by the amendment we all voted for and again I'm grateful for the amendment and for the bill sponsors working on that somewhat. But this bill does something that most of our other medical laws don't do and that is permit a whole bunch of different people to be able to sue a doctor based on hearsay. Based on something that might have happened in a doctor-patient relationship. And this bill allows parents and guardians and spouses to sue, in the past it had siblings so like I said it got a little bit better but still in most of our medical situations, we do not allow all these other people named out in statute to sue based on a conversation where they may not have been there particularly, when the statute itself says it doesn't have to be the sole reason. It could be a partial reason and that I think opens up malpractice and fines way beyond the scope of how we've ever dealt with medical situations and again I find that to be tremendously ironic because last session we closed down litigation against doctors, but here there's a particular type of doctor that this general assembly doesn't seem to like, so finding more ways to sue that kind of doctor seems to be perfectly ok. I don't think that that's right. I don't think that that's fair. And I don't think bringing in a whole bunch of other people who weren't in the room to be able to sue is appropriate. So that's the first reason. The second reason is that it is true that this will result in racial profiling. And I will tell you why in part to respond to representative Blust's question, though I'm astounded that he has it after hearing the debate. First of all, one of the proponents of the bill, in particular said, it was to go after the Asian community. She stood up and gave it as a justification. One of the people who wanted the bill from the audience said that. And then we had two women from the Asian community who came up and said how offended they were by this bill. That they came to this country, that their families were in this country because of this country's respect for gender equality. And to have their motives impugned in the country of freedom they found to be tremendously offensive. One was a South Asian woman, one was a Chinese woman. And on your desk you have the statement from one of those women. And so i'm just going to read you a couple sentences from it. She says, and this is from Gina Dillan "make no mistake in some cultures outside of the United States son preference is a real problem. Banning abortion however is not a solution to the problem either here or overseas. We cannot fight inequity by imposing more inequity. Moreover abortion bans are ineffective and will neither treat the symptom nor cure the disease of sexism. Indeed it is a perverse and cruel irony of this proposal and others like it that its supporters would report to combat societal gender bias by imposing additional restrictions on the rights and freedom of women. This is where the ?? will be most affected. I think it is important to understand where they're coming from and understand...

act that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask representative Ross a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross, we've been hearing a lot about this accusation of the racial profiling. You were in a committee, you heard the heartfelt comments that you just quoted. However, I will ask you, did you personally hear any of the sponsors of the bill bring up racial profiling, specifically the type of racial profiling that those women highlighted? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I heard Miss Holt bring up this issue when she testified in favor of the bill, and I heard you talk about the race of your children. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, may ask her a question again? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] When I brought it up, was it not in response to a question by someone else explicitly, and did we not say that at the time our intent had never been to bring up racial profiling, nor did we initiate that subject as sponsors of the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuelson, I am 100% certain that you were very, very careful to personally never bring it up. However, the issue was raised by people who testified in favor of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, I rise to oppose this legislation, and I will tell you why. The issue of sex selection abortion is a legitimate concern, but abortion ban is not the solution to that concern. I am not on the J committee, and was not able to attend that meeting, but I actually watched the testimony on Legislative Week in review over the weekend, and I was struck by the bill's sponsors testimony about her own child who was a girl who was born of an Indian mother, and it was touching, a touching piece of testimony. But, what concerned me the most about that, and I have a lot of respect for people who will adopt children, either in this country or in foreign countries, to make sure that their lives can be better. But, the thing that I'm having a problem with is the fact that we would use another culture to drive another agenda. And I believe that the agenda here is that of limiting a woman's right to choose. I can't abide the using of another culture in such a patronizing way. It is certainly admirable that we would want to create a culture that does not exercise gender bias. That is an admirable thing. But there are other ways that we can do that. And I don't believe that sex selection abortion happens in this country to the extent that it does in other countries. And while I applaud representative Samuelson's efforts to combat it in India [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the lady would yield for question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You said twice now that this bill is not needed to avoid abortion for gender selection. You said that there's another way to do that. How do we do that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I didn't save there was another way. I said there was another reason that this is happening. And the reason that it's happening is to limit a woman's right to choose. What I said, Representative Stevens is that there are other ways to combat gender bias. And I would suggest that one of those ways is to vote for a family leave bill. Vote for an equal pay amendment. That's a really good way to combat gender bias. This is not the way to do that, and I urge the body to vote against this legislation. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And I rise, not to disagree with my colleagues. I agree with the points that have been made, but I'm opposed to the bill for very different reasons. One, the same but in part different, another

[SPEAKER CHANGES] Completely different. The first thing I start is the same comment I mad when we had an enormous debate on this floor on the Right to No Bill, or two years ago. And that is, like everyone on this floor, I hate getting in the discussions of abortion. It is always difficult for each side to hear the other. It is a circumstance where those who are prolife fail to acknowledge the incredible psychological pressure on women and their choices. Where those on prochoice side fail to acknowledge the passion that exist and the religious bases that often moral bases that the other side has and we end up talking over each other, you know, as a country, and rarely find common ways. But having said that there’s no doubt, in my mind, the vast majority of women make this decision make it for enormously different circumstances. They make it as the most important moral and spiritual decision they will ever make. They make it often when they feel they have no other choices. And the last place I think the government should ever be is in this most private and spiritual decision. My opposition to this Bill is because we not only invade that again, we do so in two ways that we have never invaded before. The first, as Representative Ross has indicated, we now turn the doctor patient relationship into an adversarial one, in part. This Bill, for a woman who is facing this choice, will most assuredly lead to poorer medical care and poor choices because she will know any longer be honest with her physician. The physician will no longer ask the questions they have to ask. Indeed the Bill, as amendment, says they don’t have to. And the physician patient relationship is absolutely damaged. This Bill gives new rise to don’t ask, don’t tell. Because now the doctor will never ask and if I was the doctor’s lawyer I’d tell him to never ask. And the woman will know quickly never to tell, and what have we accomplished? Except to harm the healthcare of the woman, truly good information being given back and forth. And we invade, in an incredible way, the physician patient discussion. Secondly, look at what we’re doing. We are creating a crime here, but not for the woman, for the doctor. I teacher criminal law. I practiced it many years. We are now overturning what amounts to hundreds of years of criminal law in this Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Glazier yield for a very brief question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will not yield now but I will yield at the end of my comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Thank you Representative Stam. A crime requires two things, a criminal act and a criminal state of mind. And that generally requires that they concur together. Well here the woman’s decision to abort, her abortion itself is not illegal. The act is legal is done, if it’s done in the first trimester and its done, as it should be, under all the other rules and regulations we have. Her mind is what we’re after. That is, does she have criminal intent by making a decision that is dominantly based on sex selection? So her act isn’t criminal, but her mind is. Now that may or may not get us to a place but we’re not putting the penalty on her. Even if she makes the decision to sex select and abort, she doesn’t have the penalty, it’s the doctor performing it. And so we are not even dealing with the criminal mind of the actor, we’re going after the criminal mind, downstream. Now in a conspiracy, you have to have two people to agree on a bad act. And then an overt act and further so the conspiracy to be convicted of it. Here one of the conspirators, if you will can’t be convicted of the conspiracy cause she’s not listed as a criminal actor. Only the other one and he’s supposed to be, he or she as the doctor, telepathic to know what’s in the mind of the woman. I don’t know of another criminal law that we have, that comes to that conclusion. And I think eventually this Bill will be struck.

Down as a result of that. As a fundamental in my view violation of due process of law of the criminal law in the history of this country. That having been said, because I also believe that the only way it could possible y pass is to be co constitutionally constricted, so narrowly construed and because I believe is a pragmatic factor of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, that’s implicit in this Bill, and that has to be followed, the majority creates a Bill and in effect will never have real world application feel free in my view to relegate this Bill to the further recesses of your mind because it ‘s situation it addresses will never occur any longer if it had occurred previously. It can’t because there won’t be practical information for it and the Bill will be so constitutionally restricted if it is upheld at all, that there would never be but the most extraordinarily egregious situation that we can’t even image that would meet the criteria. What a Bill is trying to do, and I understand the sponsors attempt assuming good faith and good motivation, I don’t think will be helped at all. This Bill doesn’t help the womans health. It doesn’t help the woman decide. It doesn’t help if the doctor, the ability to make good healthcare decisions. Because we’ve in fact taken away information the doctor might need to know to help the woman with the psychological impact of the decision she’s making. Then on top of which it hardly helps the fetus in this circumstance. I can’t figure out who’s going to benefit from this Bill. It is a check off the political list to say we passed it. But it either will have no real world application or it will be struck down. Because it violates centuries of criminal law. And for those reasons among many, I will vote against this Bill and recommend this body do so. This is an incredibly complex area and this is an incredibly disappointing Bill to try to deal with any of those issues. Thank you. [Speaker change]: Mr. Speaker. [Speaker change]: Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [Representative Stam]: Would Representative Glazier yield for a very brief question? [Representative Glazier]: Yes I will [Speaker change]: Representative Glazier? Does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [Representative Galzier]: Thank you Mr. Speaker. [Representative Stam]: Representative Glazier, the bottom of page one I see a reference to the civil contempt and injunctions, I don’t see a reference to a crime anywhere in the Bill. Would you point out to us the page and line number where any crime is declared? [Representative Glazier]: You’re correct. Not a crime in that regard. So the contempt proceeding would be eventually getting you there. [Speaker Change]: Representative Duane Hall, please state your purpose. [Representative Hall]: Speak to this Bill. [Speaker change]: The gentleman is recognized to debate the Bill. [Representative Hall]: Earlier, Representative Adams mentioned that most abortions are performed before the sex can be determined. I just wanted to point out how enormous of an understatement that is. In fact 93% of abortions are performed well before we can determine what the sex is. Which makes you wonder what the real purpose of the Bill is. Representative Ross also mentioned or talked about all the new people that this opens up standing for and one is obviously the husband. I kind of try to logically think through how this might work. And the way the Bill is written obviously most married couples, they both discuss this. They talk about what’s likely to happen. What they would like to do. So the way this Bill is written, a husband could convince forth his wife to have an abortion, and then turn around and sue the doctor for performing that abortion. Representative Glazier mentioned that this will never have a real world application for this. I’ve also done lots of courtroom work and the evidentiary problems of asking a doctor to determine subjective motives would be just impracticable and impossible. I urge the body not to do this to doctors and vote against this Bill. [Speaker Change]: Representative Holly. Please state your purpose. [Representative Holly]: Speak on the Bill. [Speaker change]: The lady’s recognized to debate the Bill. [Representative Holly]: I think we’ve heard a lot of the technical things today that I agree with that have been spoken. We’ve even touched upon some of the ethnic problems and cultural issues that this Bill has attached. As a person of color who is mis-identified in a number of cultures, I can’t go to the airport without being stopped and questioned and searched. Now for a woman of

That culturally this is historically been an issue for them and this is a very very personal gut wrenching decision that I think a woman who wants to have a child even if it’s a son would not make lightly. To then possibly be stereotyped because of her ethnic background and questioned is also again another insult to women and to people of color. So I ask that you think carefully when you vote on this you know nobody seeks out an abortion. Nobody says, I’m going to go get pregnant and go have an abortion today! It’s not a decision that is made that lightly by anyone and I want in particularly something that has ethnic ramifications and implications to be considered because it’s not a good thing. Thank you. [New Speaker] Representative McElraft please state your purpose. [New Speaker] Speak on the bill. [New Speaker] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [New Speaker] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and the members and body. It has been brought up here that this only happens in foreign countries but I’ll let you know that there are four studies and you can look them up for yourself all you have to do is Google them and there not conservative studies they are from the University of California Berkley, University of Connecticut, Colombia University 2008, University of Texas. Sex selection abortions are happening here in the United States whether we will admit it or not. Pennsylvania has a law very similar to this was not enacted last year, was not enacted five years ago, it was enacted in 1982. Has not been ruled unconstitutional, has not been challenged. It was put there because sex selection abortions are feared. They are happening here in the United States. This is a very simple decision if you believe that a baby should be aborted just because it’s a boy or just because it’s a girl no other reason than vote against this bill. [New Speaker] further discussion, further debate Representative Adams please state your purpose [New Speaker] Thank You. Would Representative McElraft yield the question? [New Speaker] Representative McElraft does the lady yield? [New Speaker] I would be happy to [New Speaker] The lady yields [New Speaker] Thank you thank you very much can you tell me what places you said it’s happing and the studies but what states were identified in that study? [New Speaker] It’s happening all over. It was happing in Canada also and they now have laws against it in Canada so they are coming to the United States to have these abortions. [New Speaker] while what was speaker [New Speaker] and if you will look on the internet and search the internet you will find in all of these studies they will show you with census studies and all that these abortions are happening here in the United States [New Speaker] Does the lady yield to a follow up? [New Speaker] I will yield [New Speaker]They lady yields [New Speaker] So Representative Adams so you don’t have any states that you can identify in the United States and would North Carolina be one of those? [New Speaker] We in North Carolina have not taken that data because we have not been keeping up with that here [New Speaker] Thank you. Speaker second time speaker [New Speaker] you ladies recognize the debate, the bill the second time [New Speaker]Thank you Speaker, you know I just believe that if we had some data about North Carolina you would have it before you today that would be a part of the presenters of this bill that would be a part of what what what would be said but I do remember that part with the appeared to be the rational when this bill was presented in committee we were talking about it was talked about what’s happing in other cultures and other parts of the world and I still think that’s what we’re talking about but we’re talking about North Carolina folks it’s impossible for an outside party and family member’s other people even doctors to know all the considerations that have entered into a woman’s mind during her decision in this decision making process and it’s a difficult one as we have heard this bill is you know it has a lot of negative implications for women it has

Line of negative implications for doctors. It's going to create, as been said, an adversarial position. It's going to create distrust. What you're really likely to see is a greater demand for unsafe procedures that will place a woman's health and her life at risk. Representative McElraft, I believe we're going to find desperate situations, where women will find those dark houses to address this concern. This is a very bad, offensive bill and we need to vote no on it. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative ??, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have actually Googled sex selection abortions and the only thing I find is a study in Great Britain. Regardless, this bill will have a chilling effect on abortions and that's the intent of the bill. Anything that can take that right away from a woman and ignore the real basic needs, and I happen to agree with Representative Frazier that we don't talk to each other, we talk at each other on this issue. It is a very serious issue and we ought to be, we all agree that we would like to reduce abortions. We ought to be agreeing on how to find a way to do that, instead of making up bills that will only reduce access to a legitimate health concern. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Samuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members, we've heard a lot of debate and one thing we haven't heard a single person say, is that they think its a good idea to have an abortion when the primary purpose is because the paper is a boy or a girl. We all seem to agree that that is not a good idea, so let's pass this bill and make it not permissible in North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute House Bill 716, as amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will now proceed recording the vote, 80 having voted affirmative, 39 in the negative. The House Bill Substitute 716 as amended on its second reading . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker? It's me. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Carney? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I would like to be recorded as voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady will be recorded as voting no. Members the member may change any vote by the end of session, not before the next bill is called. Now, further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before us, or without objection the house committee substitute of House Bill 716 will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] General assembly of North Carolina and ??. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of house bill substitute, House Bill 716 on its third reading. All in favor say, aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] All opposed say, no. [SPEAKER CHANGE] No. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The aye's appear to have it. The aye's do have it. The house committee substitute House Bill 716 as amended has passed its third reading, will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, I think we are moving, we've got two bills that the Chair does not anticipate much debate that we're going to allow to carry over until tomorrow. House Bill 755, I believe there will be a motion to recalendar it, so that will be the conclusion of business for today. Representative Grady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To make motion with respect to House Bill 755. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes. The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I asked that the House Bill 755 be recalendared to not tomorrow, but the following Wednesday. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Just by clarification the gentleman did say, a week from tomorrow. A week from Wednesday. Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker, a motion pertaining to a bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. Speak . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] The House Bill 720, short title, Honor Davis and Community College be removed from the committee on rules and placed on the calendar 36B for tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I understand its going to be a very short hearing ?? representing . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] That objection so ordered. Notices and announcements. Representative Dewayne Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The House will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members, I just want to point out that we have a birthday girl in the back row, so I hope.

Join me in wishing Representative Valerie Foushee a Happy Birthday. Representative McGrady please state your purpose. Representative Collins please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The State Personnel Committee will meet tomorrow at 12:00, which is our regularly scheduled time in the regularly scheduled place. If you are on the State Personnel Committee you got two emails this afternoon while you're sitting in here. One is an agenda for tomorrow's meeting, the other is one of the Bills we're going to hear, probably the most significant Bill we're going to hear tomorrow. House Bill 834. It is a revision to the State Personnel Act. I got it out to you today so you can take a look at it. We are going to move on that Bill tomorrow, so I wanted you to get a look at it before Committee time. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative McGrady please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: We have a Judiciary B Committee Meeting scheduled. We want to do a check on that. Immediately after we adjourn if we meet around Representative Jordan's desk right here and we'll decide whether we're going forward. On our calendar though we have added House Bill 612 Confinement of Animals in Motor Vehicles and we dropped House Bill 864 Prohibit Cigarette Sales to Minors and we'll make a decision momentarily as to whether we are going forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Hager please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The ?? will meet tomorrow at noon. We have three bills on the calendar and I am glad to say that House Bill 298 will not be on the calendar tomorrow, unless you don't come. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative ?? please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The lady is recognized. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I thank you Mr. Speaker and this is for House Democrats would you please watch your email for a meeting notice about an 8:30 a.m. meeting tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Rodney Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes, tomorrow from 10:00 to 12:00 in the Legislative Auditorium I will be hosting an HOA Town Hall Day for all of those who are interested. Would love for you to come by whichever way you lean on the issue come by and speak to the citizens and avail yourself of it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Howard please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The lady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: House Finance will meet in Room 544 at 8:30 a.m. in the morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Moffitt please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I have two announcements Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you. Full Commerce Committee will meet tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. in room 643 then right after that at 11:00 in Room 643 will be the full Red Reform Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Ramsey please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I would like to recognize a gentleman from Catawba County, Andy Wells, my seatmate for doing what he said he would do for the folks of Catawba County last year. He made certain promises and those promises have been kept. He promised he would work to bring jobs and economic development to Hickory and Catawba County and I'm pleased to report and I failed to acknowledge this when his Bill passed the House, House Bill 706 preserve landfill space where we recycle former industrial buildings and now are able to tose those for other economic development purposes has passed the Senate today and sent to the Governor, and I want to recognize Representative Wells for doing what he said he would do when he came to Raleigh. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Democrats will caucus one hour before session tomorrow. Please watch your email to see what time and location. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Further notices and announcements? Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I have a couple of things Mr. Speaker if I might. First off, a motion under Rule 36B if I might. House Bill 807 short title building code council opposed codes online. That Bill had been placed on the calendar for 36B but move that that Bill be removed from the calendar and referred to the Full Judiciary Committee and allow Representative Dalton to determine which subcommittee should hear that though. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Without objection ?? order. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I have an announcement too. The Rules Committee will still meet immediately after session down in 1228. For those of you on rules you know that we tend to get through them pretty quickly. I attend to have you

...there within 5 minutes so you can move on to bigger and better things this evening. And for motion if I might, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I moved that Subject Two, messages from the Senate received of committee reports and re-referral of bills and resolutions, that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Wednesday, May the 8th, 2013 at 2 o'clock p.m. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Hamilton that the House do now adjourn to reconvene and subject to the re-referral of bills and resolutions receipt of committee reports and the receipt messages from the Senate to reconvene on May the 8th at 2 p.m. All in favor say, "Aye." [SPEAKER CHANGES] *Multiple voices saying "Aye." [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say "No." The Ayes have it, the House stands adjourned.