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

searching for


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

House | July 25, 2014 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The house will come to order. Members will take their seats. Visitors will retire from the chamber. Give members a few more minutes to come in. The Sergeant of Arms will close the doors. Members and visitors will please silence all electronic devices. The prayers this morning’s gonna be offered by Representative Carney. Members and visitors in the gallery are asked to please stand during the prayer and also to remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. [Speaker Change] Good Morning. Join me as I share a prayer with you today, an eastern orthodox prayer. Let us pray. Oh Lord grant us to greet the coming day in peace. Help us in all things to rely upon thy holy will in every hour of the day where they'll by will to us. Bless our dealings with all who surround us, teach us to treat all that comes to us throughout the day with peace of soul, and with firm conviction that thy will goverenth all. And our deeds and words guide our thoughts and feelings. An unforeseen events let us not forget that all are sent by thee. Teach us to act firmly and wisely without embittering and embarrassing others. Give us strength to bear the fatigue of the coming day with all that it shall bring. Direct our will, teach us to pray, pray though thyself in us. Amen. [Speaker Change] Amen. [Speaker Change] (Group) I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [Speaker Change] Representative Burr is recognized. [Speaker Change] Mr. Chairman the journal for Thursday July the 24th has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it be approved as written. [Speaker Change] Representative Burr moves that the journal for July 24th be approved as written. Those in favor will say aye. [Speaker Change] Aye (group) [Speaker Change] Those opposed will say no. The ayes have it the journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, or papers addressed to the general assembly of the house. Ratifications of bills and resolutions. Do you have em with the speakers name on there? Ratifications will be deferred til the Speaker arrives. Calendar. Members if you would please join me in welcoming former colleague, current Secretary of the Department of Administration Representative Bill Dockridge who's with us today on the house floor. Bill glad to have you here today. And also members would like to also recognize a special guest we have, brought to us by Representative Michaux today, the honorable Frank Turner who is a member of the Maryland House of Delegates is also with us today. Representative Turner glad to have you here sir. And the courtesies of the floor are also extended to Representative Turner. Members on the calendar we're gonna not necessarily take the bills in order because I know a couple folks are off the floor. So we're gonna take up Senate bill 788 first. The clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Senate bill 788 a bill to be entitled an act to allow the town of Duck to exercise their power of eminent domain for purposes of engaging in beach erosion control in flood and hurricane protection works. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does the gentleman from Dare Representative Cook rise? Representative Tine. I hope the gentleman will forgive the Chair for that one. But the two do look remarkably similar at times. [Speaker Change] To debate the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman from Dare has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Would ask the House to

…come to order so that the gentleman can be heard. The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s funny that you should call me Representative Cook, as the only difference in the language of this bill since we passed it out of the House on June 19th is it used to say Representative Tine at the top, and now it says Senator Cook. We passed it out on June 19th, so I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the Passage of Senate Bill 788 on its second reading. Submitee favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Representative Warren, does the gentleman wish to record on this vote? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Ninety having voted in the affirmative, and 6 in the negative, Senate Bill 788 passes its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the Passage of Senate Bill 788 on its third reading. Submitee favoring passage of the bill will say aye, those opposed will say no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 788 passes its third reading and is ordered enrolled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 376, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 376, an act to allow Montgomery County employees and the dependents of employees to participate in the state health plan for teachers and state employees. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The bill that we have before us today is very similar to a bill that was passed out of here about two or three weeks ago from Representative Brawley concerning several editions to the state health plan. There was an attempt to look into an amendment for that so we wouldn’t have to add an additional bill, but as required by the rules we had to wait on the ?? note to come back. So this is given them that opportunity to be added to the state health plan. Nearly identical to the bill that was passed a few weeks ago, and it is just for Montgomery County and just for their existing county employees. So I would ask for the members support. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the Passage of Senate Bill 376 the House Committee Substitute on its second reading. Submitee favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Chair notes that Holloway, Dollar, Johnson, Tillis all vote aye. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Ninety-five having voted in the affirmative, and five in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 376 passes its second reading, and will without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke, rise? For what purpose does the lady from Hertford, Representative Mobley, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Stanly yield to the lady from Hertford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I noticed in your explanation you said that the current county employees, what happens for those who might come on next year or the year after? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. By that I mean county employees will be added, not retirees. Not the retirees of the county. They will be excluded from the plan. And they’ll be covered by the county. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 376 on its third reading. Submitee favoring passage of the bill will say aye, those opposed will say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 376 passes its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 773, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 773, a bill to be entitled an act to implement the recommendations of the General Statutes Commission to modify the Slayer Statute due to the…

need to account for property holding a joint tenancy in unequal shares, to clarify the provisions for filing certified copies of probated wills in other counties where the decedent has real property, and to delete the statutory forms for judgment debtors claiming exemptions under General Statute 121601, because the administrative office of the courts already has widely used forms for that purpose, as recommended by the General Statutes Commission and to the recommendations of the North Carolina Bar Association to clarify their requirements for the timely substitution of a personal representative in place of a decedent an action pending and the decedent’s death and to clarify that the common law of rule against accumulations do not apply to the trust in this state, and to make other changes in the law. The General Assembly of North Carolina now acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I’ll just ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For what purpose does the gentlemen from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Mr. Speaker, I need to change my vote on Bill 788 to no. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: OK. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman will be recorded as having voted no on the second reading of Senate Bill 788. For what purpose does the lady from Yancey, Representative Presnell, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I need to change my vote on 788 to no, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The lady will be recorded as having voted no on second reading of Senate Bill 788. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Blust, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. This really is a simple, non-controversial bill. It just includes recommendations from the General Statutes Commission that we’re agreed upon during the interim before we went into the short session. Most of it’s highly technical in nature. I’ll be glad to try to answer any questions. Probably the major provision, at least for a number of pages, is to eliminate a couple of the forms for designating exemptions when someone loses a law suit or someone files bankruptcy or for some reason needs to exempt their property from creditors. It’s eliminating those forms, because the administrative office of the court produces forms at their discretion and sometimes those forms would be different, so the commission just decided to eliminate the form that is included in the Statute. I’ll be happy to try to answer any questions. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentlemen from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: To ask if the gentleman would explain Section 1. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Does the gentleman from Guilford yield to the gentleman from Craven. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes, Section 1 is simply an attempt to make sure that, when someone commits a murder, they don’t benefit in any way from their bad act. That nothing, no property somehow will come back to the slayer from the decedent’s estate. That’s generally what that is, it’s just trying to tighten it up and clarify that, that we don’t want bad actors to benefit from their bad acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question for the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 773 on it’s second reading. Any favoring passage of the bill will vote eye; those who oppose the vote, no. The court will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The Court will lock the machine to record the vote. 100 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 773 passes it’s second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: General Assembly of North Carolina now acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 773 on its third reading. So any favoring passage of the bill will say eye, [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Those who oppose will say no. The ayes have it. Senate Bill 773 passes its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Senate Bill 877, the court will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Senate Bill 877, a bill to be entitled “An Act to Exempt Certain Real Estate Time Shares from the Rule Against Perpetuities.” The General Assembly of North Carolina now acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: For what purpose does the gentlemen from Dare, Representative Tine, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This bill was also passed out of the House in June. There

is one change that is substantive however which is that instead of being a local bill for Dare and Currituck, it became a bill for statewide. Again, it deals with the issue of all of these timeshares becoming owned in common which would create 10,000 owners or so. There are some exemptions that already exist, this adds timeshares to it and it was vetted by the bar association. I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of the Senate committee substitute for Senate bill 877 on its second reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will vote "aye", those opposed will vote "no," the clerk will open the vote. Rep. Carney, does the lady wish to be recorded? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 100 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the Senate committee substitute for Senate bill 877 has passed its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The general assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of Senate bill 877 on its third reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will say "aye" [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed will say no. The "aye"s have it, and the Senate committee substitute for Senate bill 877 passes its third reading, is ordered enrolled, and will be sent to the governor. House bill 1048, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. The conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House bill 1048, a bill to be entitle an act to amend the selection criteria for Adjutant General of North Carolina National Guard to add an Assistant Adjutant General to the North Carolina National Guard and to allow for additional use of Family Assistance Center funds for surviving family members of deceased National Guard service members, Senate judiciary 1 committee substitute, adopted June 26, 2014, 5th edition engrossed July 2, 2014, submit the following report: [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Rep. Hastings rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion and to debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion and to debate the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that we do adopt the conference report, and out of respect I wanted to say one short brief comment about the original bill that eventually led to the LRC, and that has to do with the fact that Rep. Fulgum was also a primary sponsor of the original bill, House bill 202, and would appreciate your support today. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Rep. Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. First of all, I'd like to thank the marine from Gaston for his work on this bill. This has been a model for how I think the legislative process should work. This bill's got a thorough vetting at every stop on the process, and everyone involved in it has been very open to ideas. And in the end, the bill that you got before you is not at all perfect and I think it does need a little more work, but it's definitely one that I'm going to support. In the end, the federal recognition provisions of it are so important and need to go forward. This is a significantly improved version from what we had before, that this House overwhelmingly rejected because it expands the pool from which the Governor can choose the next Adjutant General. A Couple concerns that are still out there, and since Rep. Whitmeyer is not here, I'm going to echo I think what one of his concerns was, which is a highly qualified National Guard officer, who because he or she is highly qualified, spends 5 or 6 years away from the North Carolina National Guard on joint assignments, would by virtue of their selection for those prestigious jobs potentially not be eligible to be selected as the adjutant general under this bill. That needs a little bit further look I think. The other concern I have though is that if the governor did find a problem that he or she believed in the North Carolina National guard needed to be addressed by hiring someone from outside the North Carolina National Guard, while under this version they could look to the

-- Speech to Text Times the state's guards pistol without a loss would stand: power to film for someone like that but that was the right person to do the job as open up the workbook and one for that is much improved and about the sport of the hottest of the late in life that man's attempt that clarify and (SPEAKER CHANGES) question the competition and the ATM-like this at the house banking industry care of in-the-way to be clear why the man, the day that my head was the polls that we awaken from that had been a friend and time that, right up the question-and-spend partially satisfied we have significantly increased: the discretion of the two members of the National Guard from all states and territories that we all have the phenomenon: forward to (SPEAKER CHANGES) ?? covered selected if you wanted that some activity of time, not for the subway Have to take a big step with the command that he is that the discussion, they got a question time after the adoption of the copper support the house built a 48 today that it out of time, Japan, Asia-and- time that one issue that that one had invented it, then one day I got a partition of the state will be said about the way that-that time of-the only cost of 27, McInturff(SPEAKER CHANGES) and when I visited, fellow students the time that had occurred in the fifth inning off interstate (a few days, just one with an issue that the deposit of the proceeds from-behind-the-educated, just until the usage of-living-to-head, non-public institutions of higher education and the top-of-date that, that's time to get to that he and, country: the Delany which make-up late and then, Leon Panetta (SPEAKER CHANGES) time it may have been mentioned in-the jail as for the a-half, then came from that of that-that-that-and that he and, and to have that and that's time, and the financial and, at the time that the command of the treasures of the hand that, that the day of the anti-handed-10th of a life that and that that time, that the knowledge that the man had a lot of time, and that the non-time hand of the fatality, this time, and that from happening and that high demand, and those hands, and that the Venetian and if that happens, the standoff that began today, Hyun-and if that happened to have this happen, and if that happened that half at that time, and the cash-and if that happened to that and that non-cash, and that the anti-crime, and that that the plant, and that half of that, at that time-and that the cash and cash and that that's that the fact that many of them have had the time of the discussion where they got a question-and-take a stake in the senate and house bill 9:33-taking, that-that-that time ??..........

The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. The motion to concur is adopted by a vote of 100 to 0, as the Senate committee substitute for House bill 27, the bill is ordered enrolled and sent to the Governor. Ratification of bills and resolutions, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The enrolling clerk ?? of energy conservation code to certain existing nonresidential buildings, clarify storm water program impervious service calculation for the redevelopment to create an exemption from the North Carolina Environmental Protection Act for the reoccupation of an existing building or facility and to amend the statute governing the Dept. of Commerce rural economic development division. House bill 625, an act relating to zoning provisions for temporary healthcare structures. In the following bills duly ratified and properly enrolled and presented to the Office of the Secretary of State: Senate bill 201, an act to authorize Stanley Community College to enter into agreements with Stanley county to jointly erect buildings on property owned by Stanley community college. House bill 1044, an act to make changes to the Aversboro township tourism development authority. House bill 1151, an act to make changes to the law governing red light cameras in Fayetteville. House bill 1155, an act adding certain described properties to the limits of the village of Pinehearst and authorizing the village to levy special assessments to meet the cost of construction of a storm water management system to serve the property added. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chaptered bills will be noted. House bill 101, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 101, a bill to be entitled an act to reauthorize expired special registration plates to authorize additional special registration plates to be on a background other than the first in flight background and to establish a process by which persons or organizations must obtain a minimum number of paid applications prior to obtaining legislative approval for the development of a special registration plate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Davy, Rep. Howard arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would move that we do concur with House bill 101, and I will again briefly explain this bill has been worked on with members from the DMV, members from the House, and members from the Senate. And again, we had a good vetting of this bill in the House finance committee yesterday for the purpose of discussion and debate. The objective of the bill is that currently we have 116 special registration plates that expired July 1 of '13, and we are opening that process to allow some of the entities until October 1 of '14 to achieve the number that is required. In some cases it's 300 applications, in other cases it's 500. But also the new process will be developed after October 1 of '14, if a constituent comes to you and wants to have a special plate authorized, your answer will be this: They are to gather the 300 applications, prepaid applications that will be ready to go to DMV, and after that, it will be up to you to file the bill to authorize the plate. What's happened in the- currently, what's happening is many constituents come to us and ask that we authorized a plate, that's why we have about 116 special plates that have never materialized to be what we would anticipate what we would want them to be. But this is a good cleanup bill, again, it was a unanimous vote coming out of House finance yesterday, and I would ask for your suppot. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discus- For what purpose does the lady from Mecklinburg, Rep. Earle rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Rep. Howard a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Davy yield to the lady from Mecklinburg? She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Howard, this is a friendly question. I've got a constituent that has approached me about changing the face of their plate. Now they've already have a plate and they've already got over the number that would be required. This would not apply to them, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you.

Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 101. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 99 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House has concurred in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 101. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. House Bill 1059, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1059, a bill to be entitled an act to modify the New Hanover occupancy tax. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask the House to concur with the Senate Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s motion having been stated, the gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, there is presently a state wide law that makes the theft of a Venus flytrap a misdemeanor. When this body passed House Bill 1059, it was, it had two components. One was making the theft of a Venus flytrap a Class A felony. The other had to deal with the occupancy tax in New Hanover County. When it came back from the Senate, the Senate had PCSd it, taking out the Venus flytrap section but keeping the room occupancy tax section. I have talked with the Senate President pro tempore staff this morning. The rationale for doing that was what the Senate would like to do, and they are in fact working on a bill that would be connected to their regulatory reform bill that they’re building now. That will disregard the misdemeanor statewide statute and replace it with a statewide statute making it a Class A felony for the theft of a Venus flytrap. So I would much rather have a statewide bill rather than a local bill, so that’s why I ask that we concur. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Out of respect for my colleague, I disagree. I think that a room occupancy tax changes are not sufficient for New Hanover County. It basically takes money that was set aside in kind of a locked up, unaffiliated area and now it goes to travel and tourism. And they’ve agreed to give some of it back to ?? maintenance but I don’t know if that’s going to happen for sure. I would actually like to be able to come back in the long session and fix this more properly. So I would vote not to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, 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. With all due respect to my colleague, Representative Catlin from New Hanover County, I’m rising to encourage everyone to concur on this vote. We have reached consensus among all the beach towns, the county commissioners in the City of Wilmington. They’re behind this bill, they’re satisfied with the outcome of the changes to the room occupancy tax, and we’re ready to move forward. I appreciate your green vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ?? motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would just like to say that in looking at this, I had discussed prior to introducing the room occupancy tax section of House Bill 1059, I had spoken on two different occasions with the County Manager for New Hanover County, the county staff, and Representatives from the beach communities, the City of Wilmington, and the tourism bureau authority that governs the use of the room occupancy tax funds. We’re all on the same page. They all agree to the language that I presented. I see no reason whatsoever not to concur and let’s move forward. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur in the Senate Committee Substitute number 2 to House Bill 1059. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote.

Voted in the affirmative and 16 in the negative. The house has concurred and Senate committee substitute number two for House Bill 1059. The bill will be in vote. Ladies and chair understands that there are still amendments being prepared for technical amendments, or the technical corrections. Any member who wishes to prepare an amendment for technical corrections will be allowed to do so by informing the clerk, either by providing them with the amendment or the intent to have an amendment prepared by 11:00. That's 15 minutes. And again, ladies and gentlemen, to be clear, that is simply to inform the clerk that you are preparing an amendment. Either you're in possession of the amendment or issued an to prepare an amendment. You have 15 minutes to determine if that's something you'd like to do. The chair will entertain any amendments to amendments that are passed, however that will come afterwards, because that means we're talking to a different substance. Senate Bill 793, The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the president of the Senate, the speaker of the house of representatives, the conferee is appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on Senate Bill 793. A bill to be entitled and active to provide that a teacher employed by a charter school may serve as a non-voting member. The board of directors the charter school, et al. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Hardester, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, you may recall this bill passed the House a few weeks ago. It went to conference. It makes a variety of technical changes to charter school laws. There were changes made in conferee but the overall content of the bill remains the same. The bill primarily focuses on charter school approval transparency and operational procedures. The conference report passed the Senate on unanimous note 45 to 0. I think it's a good bill and I'd appreciate your support of conference report. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis. This gentleman have the light on for the... Representative Cotham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members. That was a pretty brief synopsis of a pretty big bill. So congratulations Representative Hardister. You're learning how things work here. And I'm going to violate those rules today and talk about this bill, this conference report and ask you not to adopt the conference report. A little bit of history, as you all know charter schools were originally created to be labs of innovation. To look at what's going well in our schools, what's not. Let's try some new things, let's see if it works. Let's hopefully share that information with our traditional schools. All with the interest of improving student achievement in holding everyone accountable. And in a lot of ways, in North Carolina, at a lot of great charter schools that we have in our state, they're doing that. And that's something we should be proud of. North Carolina, when the democrats were in charge, preceded very cautiously when it came to adopting and accepting new charter schools. Some people said we were a little too cautious, and so when the republicans took over, we saw a lot of sweeping changes, when it came to charter school laws. And the number of charters we could have, and what these charters would look like and what they would not look like. As a result, there's been some problems, some confusion, and some modifications that needed to be made. And that's kind of where we are today. So this conference reports corrects some problems, explains somethings, but leaves a lot out. I was a conferee on this conference report, and I take that role very seriously. And with honor. I was very disappointed.

And a few things that happened, and I know there are political differences and we come from different walks of life, but I could not sign this conference report. And that's the first time that I've ever not signed a conference report, and I did not take that decision lightly. Because just as I voted for your budget, I do try to really look at things with overall what can I live with what can I not live with. And there were two big issues in this conference report that I cannot accept. The first one is the discrimination clause. And that's going to be talked about more by one of my colleagues, but I believe that all children are children of God. I really do believe that. And I think that we should not discriminate against any child or anyone in general, and so that gave me great pause and I did vote against that, in the conference report. I was the only no, but I still was a no. But the second issue that I am going to focus a little bit more on, really kinda sent my brain spiraling and running and asking a lot of questions, which is a dangerous time for me because I like to think about processes and patterns, and I got a hint of some things that might be happening or could happening, and that all revolves around transparency. I believe that public money should be transparent, and that we are responsible to the taxpayers. And so if a charter school, lets say, is operated by what we call an EMO, an Educational Management Organization, that's a for profit company. If they operate a charter school, and have their teachers, and will now have to disclose their teachers salaries. Which I think is fine and good, and that was really never the biggest source of heartburn that many people had. The problem comes in with those non-teachers, and that public money, and where it's going and what we as taxpayers and those whom we are responsible for looking out for. Where are those tax dollars going? And is there transparency? So I started of thinking about this, and as someone who is a sitting principal, and has a principal license, if I had a charter school, and had an EMO for profit company with charter schools, I would have my staff my teachers and they would again be subject to public records. But then, hypothetically of course, I could hire my friends and family maybe even some of you, to work for me at my private charter school. As subject employees of this company, this EMO, this company - which lets be mindful is still getting public money. So the money is flowing. And I could pay you whatever we want. Whatever we agree upon. Now is this am I trying to say all charters are doing this? Absolutely not. Absolutely not. But even if one is doing it, with public taxpayer dollars, shouldn't that be a problem? Shouldn't that cause us concern, because yesterday I heard so many of you talk about, we are responsible for public dollars, and we don't want someone to use public dollars for their own economic impact, and that was my good friend from Gaston county who said that. And so, I ask you the same thing when it comes to charter schools. There's too many questions around transparency, and so if there are too many questions around transparency, then it likely says we're not transparent. And that's really the issue here. And so the senate got this bill very quickly they didn't know it was coming, there was a nice little quick presentation. Everybody was told it was good, we're moving, we fixed the problems, move on they voted 45-0. Then my phone started ringing last night off the hook of oh my gosh what happened. School systems started calling other members myself asking questions, and I just think that if we have so much confusion, if we're making the law some ambiguous if we're having so much ambiguity, why why are we doing this? And

again, we are responsible to the taxpayer dollars. And I think that this should give all of us cause and pause, and we should say yes. We believe in transparency, we believe in accountability, we don't want a school that's set up in Wilmington to get upwards of $15 million of public money where those EMO salaries go to have 99% public money. To pay whomever they want, how much every they want, and we know nothing. Doesn't that give any of us concern? Is that really any of us being transparent? Our own governor told that newspaper that he would veto this bill if public disclosure was not in there, and I hope he will stand to his word. And so I really ask you to really think about that, and support public tax dollars, but going for public good. For public education, and really knowing where our money really is going. Because if the money flows, then we should know where it goes. And that's not happening. And that's a serious problem. That's an ethical problem for me, and I could not support this conference report. And so you might hear some things. Well, we have disclosure. Well, they're going to be the same as everybody else. Not exactly. And there's a reason why this is probably all happening today or the attempt yesterday until I objected. I noticed in an article that I read in a newspaper that a public records was filed for a certain for-profit charter entity, and they said that they would respond, and give all this information over next week. So if this bill passes today, if the Governor changes his veto stance and signs it, then it becomes law. And then that charter school, knowing what they probably knew, they're not going to give over those records next week. Because now they don't have to, because we just said they don't. I have a problem with that, and I hope that you will too. I ask you not to adopt the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Meyer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'd like to ask Rep. Hardister a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Hardister, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Rep. Hardister. When we debated this bill in the House, we had a little bit of controversy about protections for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered students. We had a great moment of unanimity where we found a compromise amendment to take care of our concerns. We voted 115-0 to support that amendment thanks to Rep. Ramsey. And now when this comes back to us, it appears that those protections are gone. Why would we support a conference report where that unanimous stand that we took has been stricken from the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Meyer, thank you for the question. When we voted on that amendment, it was- I have the language here. It was- would it- okay, here's what it say. "A charter school should not discriminate against any student respect to any category protected under the United States Constitution under Federal law applicable to the states." And the conference committee, we felt like we don't need to subject that kind of policy in a charter school bill, because it could have broad effect. And so, we felt that's something that ought to be taken up in a long session. If we're gonna mirror Federal law, that's something that ought to be vetted, debated, go through the process, so what we did as a compromise in the conference committee is we decided to take existing state law as it applies to traditional public schools and apply that to charter schools. And that's what we have in the bill now. Mr. Speaker, may I debate the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My concern is that we did have a thorough process where our amendment to provide protections for LGBT students was thoroughly debated by this body, we debated that over 2 days, in fact. And we passed an amendment unanimously. Our job is to make state law. And the existing state law does not protect LGBT students in the course of enrollment, or even just maintaining enrollment in charter schools. I believe that this body stood up for protecting those students, and we should continue to stand up for protecting those students, and

We should vote not to concur to provide our best effort to tell our colleagues in the Senate that we value justice for all students. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Hardister a question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hardister does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Representative Hardister you said there were some provisions that you guys had put under existing state law. Can you explain what state law and on the follow-up question you said that it was going to create a broad affect. Can you explain broad affect when it comes to the Constitution and protecting children and what broad effect with that actually affect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thanks for the question. To be a 100 percent honest with you I’m not sure what type of broad affect but I think when we subject our state laws to adopting into our state law, any type of federal law bringing it into the state of North Carolina I think we need to be very judicious about that and because I’m not an attorney it’s kind of hard for me to explain but in the conference committee we said this could have consequences across the state, not just for charter schools, but for other, other parts of the state in North Carolina and it would be affected by taking in the federal law. So, to be honest with you I’m not one hundred percent sure. I think there's nobody in this body that wants to see anybody discriminated based on who they are as a person. But I think it's sensible to say that we have in the state of North Carolina law that will protect people from discrimination that applies to traditional public schools and has for a long time and so we took that and applied it to charter schools in this bill. I believe Representative Lewis passed out a document that everybody should have on their desk that touches on this and I would say Mister Speaker I spoke to Representative Lewis of before starting debate and he said he may want to speak to this, he can probably speak with more authority than I can. What I can say Representative Brandon is that I want to do what's right for all children regardless of who they are and a background in who they are as a person but when you get into federal law versus state law, and so on and so forth for some of us it’s kind of hard to wrap our head around and we want to be very judicious about what were doing so I think the spirit, the intent of where, at least I’m coming from with this bill is the same as yours and beyond that, I would just say that again we’re trying to take discrimination law in North Carolina existing and apply it to charter schools and then when we move on to the next session, I would commit to work with anyone who wants to take a look at can we strengthen those laws can we strengthen laws or expand upon laws in any way that would help protect our children from discrimination, but again, Mister Speaker, I may see if Representative Lewis, would like to explain the document that he has passed out. I believe he could probably explain this better than I can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon I understand that Representative Lewis is going to speak momentarily. I think he is going to address that you can either direct then or see if the question is answered that time, [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will address, I will not yield to Representative Lewis to explain where LGBT folks are protected in this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative would the, does the gentleman with to debate or has he redirected the question. Representative Lewis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis does the gentleman wish to yield to the gentleman from Guilford in response to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon I believe you asked where the nondiscrimination language appears in this bill, and I'm sorry I was trying to listen to what you said but I wasn’t sure if you were going to ask or I was going to speak. So let me just take a shot and if I don't get where you asked I’ll try again. Discrimination against anyone at anytime for anything is wrong. It's against the law it’s defined in state statute, numerous times exactly the way it is defined in this bill. State law in no statute, in no section of existing law and this get part to what Representative Meyer asked in no part of existing law does the kind of language that

You ask about appear. So this bill provides the exact same protection that was what we as I listen to the could debate on this bill. I heard two things I heard one we want the charter schools the public charter schools to be subject to same kind of rules that the traditional public school are that what this language does. This language does protect all kids and as I said there is no other statue that speaks to the kind of language that you have ask about. You know because you have been here several years now we often as we draft bills attempt the manic or to reiterate existing language in bills that's what this bill does. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Thank you. Can I speak on the bill? [SPEAKER CHNAGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] The problem is here is that we can pull from state law as much as we want to pull from state law and we can imply that this does protect all kids the problem in the state of north Carolina is that the LGPT community is not a protected class. There is no state law that protects it. We have national origin. We have religion we have sex we have race but we don't have that protected class room. So there is nothing we are pulling from that's the reason why we have to pull from federal law because the state of North Carolina does it protect LGPT students or people for that matter. A principal of a charter school regardless of what this bill says can say because there is no protection that we are not taking LGPT students like we just had to happen in Wilmington day we are not taking gay students and he wanted to take public money and he was able to say that. That same principal could not get up and say I am not taking black children. That would be illegal but he was able to get up and say we are not taking gay students and it was totally legal and he doesn't have to take them and he won't and that is the problem. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Representative Iler please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Pro panic question to. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Representative Brandon is the gentleman you? [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Okay representative Brandon in fair of channeling former representative Luebke confused. So you're furniture school that was gonna deny abbess to gay students it was charter school or a Christian school what was that? [SPEAKER CHNAGES] A private school taking public school for ventures and the debate was city was gonna take public money from ventures. Was he still able to discriminate against LGPT students and he decided not to take public money so he can continue to discriminate. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Follow up question. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Does the gentleman you. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] No recollection it was a Christian school not a church school. Additional question is something changed in last few years that we still emit students to charter school by lottery have we changed that so we can pick and choose and by lottery. [SPEAKER CHNAGES] Lot of charter schools start does start not even have to have a lottery. I have charter school we don't have a lottery not a capacity yet. The problem here is this do I expect I have been living in this for all for 39 years do I expect a school to get up and do the school Wilmington did know I know that as the exception but that's the region why we make laws I don't expect may be two or three charter school to even say such a thing but if they do say such a thing we have to a have a law to protect it and right now we do not that same principal in Wilmington will regardless it's a private school of it's a private school he still cannot get up and say I don't take school children even it's a private school he can't say that he can't say I am not gonna say certain people because who they are because that's not American and that's not the constitution. He still said it and there's no protection for that student regardless of who they are it doesn't matter if you are public private charter virtual whatever. You should never be able to discriminate and based on anybody and we have a law and we have a policy and in state of North Carolina that a man can stand up and in front of his school and say I am not taking these children and that is ridiculous it should never happen that way we have protection for every child except the LGPT child. I am not coming back here but what I would say is that

This policy that we have in this bill is not… I understand what Hardister is saying, “Are we going to bring this into the charter school bill?” I understand that argument. But the problem is is that there are no protections. And if you really are serious about making sure that the Constitution applies to everybody, you don’t go and select and choose who the Constitution applies to, and who the Constitution does not apply to. “Oh, it’s too broad. Or it’s this, it’s that.” And we make all these excuses on why we don’t protect people. But protections are part of the Constitution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hope this is the last one. So you are, given the conversation the answer that I heard, you are still in agreement that the Charter school has the same protections that a traditional public school has? These other schools are private, Christian, other kinds of schools, are not part of this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I don’t agree with that because we don’t have the protection. They can say it. I mean even though we say… In order for them to not be able to do it, you would have to have a law saying that they can’t, and we don’t have that law. The public school doesn’t do it because the public school it doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s not there. We had to put bullying laws in. We still have a long way to go with that. Just because the public school takes them, and they have to take them, doesn’t mean that a charter school has to take them. A charter school can deny people. And if they go to court right now and say, “Hey look we’re not taking this gay student.” There is nothing in our policy that says that they have to. Nothing. Absolutely nothing. So if they went to court about this today, and said, “Somebody get up and show me where that school would have to take an LGBT student?” There’s nothing in our law. You could see it, you could read it, it’s all in black and white. It tells you who it protects. And what it does not protect is the LGBT student. It just doesn’t. No matter how much we want to apply it. No matter how much we really want to assert it. And no matter how much we have it in our heart that we want to protect all students, it is not in the language. And if it’s not in the language, anybody can do it. And that’s just where it is. So folks, I’m not going to do this, I’m not going to go through a whole long debate about it. I appreciate your 115, nothing vote on equality. But the real issue here is the LGBT community is not a protected class. You can’t draw something from nothing. Don’t fool yourself. That stuff is not in this bill because it’s not written. And any judge and any court will allow any school and entity to say, “We can discriminate on that simply because it’s not protected.” And like I said, the case in Wilmington. Regardless if it’s a private school. Just understand this, that principal in Wilmington could not get up and say, “I don’t take black children. I don’t take Jewish.” He can’t say that. But he could get up and say, “I don’t take gay children.” You deal with that and let me know if you’re OK with that. You let me know if you’re OK with that. For somebody to stand up in front of their school and say, “We’re not taking you because of who you are.” You all deal with that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Langdon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the question, of course, is do we have a law in North Carolina that says public charter schools cannot discriminate? And that is true. They cannot discriminate. And I think we’re getting off the subject of what is really the law here. So I would hope as you consider the Conference Report that you actually consider that very point. Discrimination cannot be done. I understand what Representative Brandon was saying, I don’t have a problem, there are issues sometimes, but the state law’s pretty clear. And I hope you will consider that when you take your vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the adoption of the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, obviously this is a very important issue to everyone in here. And I’ve listened very closely to the debate on this issue and on other issues that we’ve done this year. And I just want to make a few points. I would point out to you that the original objection to this bill, as was referenced earlier…

By the lady from Mecklenburg, was that it maintained a different standard of public record inspection and access for the public charter schools than the traditional public schools, this corrects that, this corrects that. The point that is being discussed about contract-type employees, this would be no different than if the Harnett county schools were to contract with SAS or with IBM to come in and redesign their computer system. The contract that the Harnett county schools signed with SAS would be fully-disclosable to the public. Any contract for management type, be it janitorial services, administrative services, that are signed by public charter school is fully, fully-disclosable as a part of the public record. Now, let's go back to the contract with SAS again, while you as a citizen have the right to see the contract that the Harnett schools may have signed with SAS, you don't have the right to see what SAS pays its people to carry out the contract, and not only do you not have the right to do it for the charter schools or the traditional schools, you don't have the right to do it for any other agency or branch of the state of North Carolina. We heard you loud and clear, you want the charter schools held to the same standard as the traditional public schools, that's what you said, that's what the governor said, that's what this bill does. I also want to speak again briefly, on the non-discriminatory language that's in this bill. Discrimination, I said this before, but I think it bears repeating, discrimination against anyone, at any time, for any reason, is wrong, is wrong. It's already forbidden by state law, by federal law, by numerous court decisions that have come down, and it's not gonna happen. This bill, this bill, is not respectfully the vehicle to start to try and enumerate different classes of people. This bill treats everybody the same, every person who wants to go to a public charter schools is allowed to go, period. And, you know, I listen closely to the debate yesterday, and one of the things that I heard that were that we're not a rubber stamp for the Senate. And I agree with that, that was very well said. But this Congress report, was adopted by the Senate 45-0, I heard the same gentleman I believe, try to differentiate between Conservatives and uber-Conservatives, so I have to ask, which one of the minority party in the Senate, are they just the regular Democrats, or are they the uber-Democrats? I don't know. All I'm saying is, this conference report that we have before us, and this motion to adopt it is a straightforward, simple request to make a few changes in the charter school law, and please let me reiterate two points, first of all, the objections that were heard when this bill was first passed, is that this objects charter schools to a different level of scrutiny and public inspection than traditional public school, this conference report fixes that. Charter schools are now subject to the same exact disclosure that traditional public schools are, and I might add, every other state agency is, very important to note, and since again, there's been, and I respect, and I've made a statement similar to this, I respect the passion, and I reject the past abuses

And discrimination and attempts to classify people into groups and to treat those groups differently. But this bill, this bill merely says We don’t do that. We don’t allow it now in this State. And we’re not going to allow it going forward. This is a good conference report. This shows legitimately listening to the objections that were put out there. Treat the charters the same. That’s what you said. Treat the charters the same. This treats the charters the same. This protects the public’s right to know. This protects the public money that flows to these public charter schools which educate our kids. And I would urge you to let’s adopt this report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the Motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen of the House, this argument has gone on as before this body made a, added something to this bill that the Senate decided to take out and put something else in there. But the argument comes down to somebody just argued the fact that it means, that you not going to discriminate against anybody. What does discrimination mean? Why do we have to specify those areas where discrimination is identified. It’s because discrimination like all other wording in a lot of instances, is not specific. It’s not specific. If you say I’m not going to discriminate against you, why am I not going to discriminate against you? Am I not going to discriminate against you because you’re white? Or because you’re gay? Or because your creed doesn’t say that I should – What does it mean? What you’re doing is saying, you are defining. You are defining what discrimination means. And you do it every day. You got it in here. You say a charter school shall not discriminate against any student on the basis of ethnicity, national origin, gender, or disability. It doesn’t say anything about sex. It doesn’t say actually anything about color. Ethnicity is different from color. What you’ve got here is something that this House finally decided to do. And the Senate decided they wanted to change it and put it back like it was. These words that you put in here have specific meaning. Sexual orientation. Everybody shies away from sexual orientation. But if you discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation and you don’t discrimination on the basis of race, have you discriminated or have you not discriminated? That’s what the problem is here. That’s why you have to be specific in what you do and what you say and how these things operate. We need to go back to the language, and I would admit to you as a lawyer that I’m not totally satisfied with what we passed out of here, but at least, at least it was a move in the right direction and the Senate now wants to change the direction that you made on that. And I think that Representative Cotham made an impassioned prius?? On why you should not concur on this and go back to where we originally were in this bill. And not have the Senate run roughshod over us as they seem to be trying to do right now. I mean if you’re going to, just get everything back to them. Let them do it and we can go home. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to stay this motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move the previous question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves the previous question. The question before the House, shall the main question now be put? All in favor will vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The chair will allow time for members to return to their desk. A brief period of time, Representative Catlin. The clerk will lock machine, record the vote. 63 having voted in the affirmative 35 in the negative, the motion passes. The question before the House, is the adoption of Senate bill 793. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed vote no,

CLerk will open the vote The clerk will record the vote 62 voted yes 32 voted no, the bill has been adopted. Members, there was no debate because this issue is not considered a main quesiton which is why the minority and majority leaders were not recognized. House Bill 1133 will be read A bill to be entitle and enacted to make corrections to the general statutes and session laws REp ??? state your purpose To debate the bill. Recognized Thank you members. This is a lengthy bill and ill try to do this asap but at the same time i need discussion. members of the house rules committee can attest that was our longest meeting yesterday, in years past rep ?? pointed this out I remember we would get the technical corrections bill on our desk and it was too hot to touch because it was off the printer. I will credit two speakers, speaker ??? made it so the thing wont come flying on the floor and sllowed it to sit around and folks could hear it. THe good news is is it signals the end of session which is the last thing we do, its nice we do this before the leaves turn outside. The way this bill has been developed its been a workgroup and central staff both in the seante and house working through trying to find technical corrections. There are some other chagnes but this has been the process of several weeks and many of you hav emade suggestions on both sides of the aisle that have been lost in the shuffle. So what you have is some ways is partially consensus and this has been a work in progress and thank the house rules committee yesterday who gave deliberate debate. Ex there was one provision having to do with optomistrists caught the provision would accidentally do more. This bill has had a lot of work and vetting and the result is waht you see before you. A number of amendments I am fine with and some I will be oppposing. First off I can make life simple to part 1. These are general statute commission reccommendations. THis is section 1 to section 17 and those are all GSE references and they are purely technical. They are similar to rep ?? presented and some provisions are identical and ended up in both bills so theres no harm we pass it twice. Part 2 we start out and ill try to make it quick and I do beleive the bill summary is accessible on your dashboard so ill be reading but i will try to

Try to cut it short when I can. Section 18 is very simply fixing an incorrect reference to a civil procedure rule, and also spells out the standing of legislative officers at the appellate level. We passed legislation to give legislative officers standing at the trial court level and it was unclear where we were on the appellate cases so that’s what that’s about. 18.5 deals with jurisdictional amount. We had a bill last year that change the jurisdictional amount for superior court from 10,000 to 25. This is corresponding language for that. Section 19, and I think there’s even an amendment. I don’t know if Representative Halsey is still going to run his amendment on Section 19 or not. I’ve heard he is. Okay, he’s nodding affirmatively. Let me spend a couple minutes on Section 19. Section 19 amends the provision, allowing a plaintiff to serve a motion to dismiss an appeal on a summary ?? action, if the defendant has failed to do specified things. What the current law says, [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham arise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to correct the record. I’m not running an amendment. I don’t know if anyone else is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then I’ll take it from two minutes to 30 seconds, to explain it. I think there was probably a misunderstanding what it did. Let me tell you what it does do. Right now if somebody gets evicted and they appeal their case for the magistrate to district court, they have to post a bond so that they can’t just continue to live somewhere for free. And this doesn’t affect that. What this issue does is let’s say someone gets evicted because they’re engaging in illegal activity. They’re doing drugs or whatever it is. One condition that can also be imposed on the appeal is that the person not be using the house still as a drug house. And if they violate a condition of the appeal, then that’s a basis that it can be dismissed. But there’ve been interpretations that had been rendered by what we’ve been hearing is that cases, people were still being in houses, appeals still being pending, where illegal activity was occurring. So this was causing problems not only for land owners but also for the courts, the magistrates, and the district court judges were growing frustrated, feeling there was nothing they could do. So that’s what this language is about. Section 20, what we’ve done is expanded the list of offenses that magistrates can hear as opposed to a district court judge. We’ve done that to be more efficient with our judge’s time. This adds open burning offences to that list. Section 21 clarifies that indigent defense services can pay for the services of a guardian ad litem, who’s been appointed to represent a parent or respondent in a DSS case, that they thought they had the authority, there was some confusion about whether they did or didn’t. This just clarifies it. Section 22, which I believe there is going to be an amendment by Representative Martin, and I’ll debate the merits of that later. It repeals the child vitality task force, effective June 30, 2015. And then there’s a whole session that conforms to that. I will tell the body that there was some interest in making the repeal immediate. The reason that the June 30, 2015 date was picked was to give it time so that if the body next year wanted to extend the child vitality task force, the body could do so. Because we’ll be back here in January. This isn’t effective ‘til June but again we can debate the merits of that proposal when Representative Martin sends forward his amendment. Section 23 is an interesting provision that was requested by our sheriffs. And what it does is it authorizes the jails to give or sell vapor products to inmates who are involved in an authorized smoking cessation program. Those are the e-cigs, they don’t have any second-hand effects, and the jails believe, the sheriffs believe this will help them with discipline issues and just trying to serve as an incentive that they can use, apparently smoking is, I ?? attorneys. I can tell you when I’ve gone to see clients in jail who are facing five years in prison, sometimes they’re more worried about getting a cigarette than what’s going to happen. I’ve seen it. But anyway, this is a way I guess to kind of try to fix two problems. Section 23.5 makes some changes to the ?? statutes about who has to provide information to the national criminal background check. Section 24 makes modifications to the concealed handgun permits. Right now the AOC is directed to prescribe the forms. What this does is this makes it so that the SBI’s responsible for prescribing the forms. That was found there were some issues with that.

section 24.5, this has to do with disposition of seized firearms. Right now under current law, the way the statute's written, you have a trial, person's either convicted or acquitted, whatever, and there's a gun, and let's say the police department wants to be able to sell that gun. We passed a law, I think a year ago, to fix that. The current law says the police agency has to submit the writing- the request in writing in order to be able to sell the weapon. What this does, it gets rid of the request in writing because what's happening is most time if you're in court, if a person goes in and enters a plea or whatever happens at the end of the trial, the district attorney'll say "Your honor, this gun," or whatever, "was seized, we need to know what to do with it." and the Judge will say, and they'll say the police department, law enforcement's asked for it, and the judge says "All right, I order the gun be turned over to the ?? county Sherriff's office", whoever. This conforms with the practices opposed to something required to be written in- put in writing. The section 26 deletes the requirement to keep fingerprint records after expunctions. What had happened was it was found- the expunctions statute is where a criminal charge or in some cases a conviction, but most of the time just a charge is erased from somebody's record. There was a lag where the fingerprint records would still show up, so somebody had gone through the process of expunction, the court had granted it, they still do a background check, and because the fingerprint records still show up it still hits and would show that there was something. So this fixes that. Section 27 just changes who transmits records to SBI. 28 is technical. 28.3 and 28.5 are conforming to federal law with commercial drivers' license. Section 29 comes at the request of DOT to delay part of the implementation of the electronic lien system, they just can't be ready. Section 30 treats independent car dealers the same as franchise car dealers. Section 31 I believe comes to us courtesy of Rep. Szoka. This amends the definition of a home loan to basically say that this has to do with mortgage issues, that if a mobile home which is secured by- the debt is secured by a lien against the title and it's a mobile home that's affixed, that it's given the same protection that is accorded to a permanently built house. And I think my real estate expert directly in the rear is giving me the thumbs up that he concurs with that explanation. Section 32 clarifies the standing of a litigant in an action pending against the decedent, and how you go about substituting the personal representative. 32.5 is purely technical. Section 33 is a very good thing we're doing. It probably is not getting the accolade it deserves, but what it does is it will allow property held by a husband and wife and tenants by entirety that is placed into a trust to enjoy the same protection that it would have if it was simply held in tenants by entirety. I won't get into the long explanation, I can tell you that in our meeting we spent a very long time discussing it and that. But this is a very positive change in- for allowing that. The section 34 is a complicated provision that is technical having to do the trust, if anyone would like to explain that they are welcome to stand up and do so. Section 36 authorizes a settlement ??- this is the one about real estate closings. Presently there's been an interpretation, and I don't recall who came down with the interpretation, but there was an interpretation that came from somebody that said at a real estate closing where you- and most folks here have bought a house before, refinanced, done something, you have a closing, and there's a certain amount of money that gets placed in that lawyer's trust account. And from that money, the lawyer would pay to get the deed recorded, would pay out of it like the survey, if you have somebody like a ?? or an engineer come in, you know, like those engineers that make all that money, they get paid out of the closing sometimes. The realtor gets paid, and what the law did- what this does, it says it's legal for the attorney to pay those funds out of the trust account. There'd been some interpretation saying that the attorney needs to advance those funds and they'd get reimbursed. So this is one, Rep. Hager, where engineers, realtors, and lawyers are all on the same side. This is a good day. The- I won't tell my engineer ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the

The gentleman from Rutherford arise. [Speaker Change] To see if Representative Moore would yield for a question. [Speaker Change] I yield. [Speaker Change] Proceed. [Speaker Change] Representative Moore seeing that yours and I's are the only alike zone right now. Could we suspend this and get to the amendments? [Speaker Change] Part of this is payback for having to listen to some of your technical explanations on some of these bills you've run the last few minutes. No I'll be glad to do that. [Speaker Change] That's nice. [Speaker Change] The members can see that, if any members have any questions. I'll stop talking and I'll take any questions if anybody wants me to provide further explanation. [Speaker Change] Thank you Representative Moore. Why don't we proceed into the amendments so we can actually see what this bills gonna look like so we'll know what we're discussing. Representative Hall's recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read. Representative Hall is it 150 or 149? [Speaker Change] 1 page 42 lines 9 through 16 it should be ATC 166V1. No. [Speaker Change] Please come up to the clerk and we'll get that straight. Representative Hager you're recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Representative Hager moves to amend the bill on page 46 line 42. [Speaker Change] Representative Hager you're recognized to explain your amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This amendment was contained in another bill that come through the house several weeks ago. It was in house bill 1224 which was written in Presnell's bill. It basically puts in the evergreen JMAC funds because we're a little worried about what may happen to house bill 1224 now it’s been modified by the Senate. And Mr. Speaker if Representative Presnell would like to add more I would gladly accept it. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does Representative Presnell rise? [Speaker Change] Just to say that this is the bill that was voted on, on June the 25th and it was voted 101 to 10. This is to save the housing jobs in my district, and thank you so much. [Speaker Change] Further discussion or debate? [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does Representative Luebke from Durham arise? [Speaker Change] To raise a point of order. [Speaker Change] You're recognized to raise a point of order. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker as I read the amendment this includes an appropriation so that if this amendment were approved by the body the bill would have to go to appropriation. I'm looking at rule 38A. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does Representative Stam arise? [Speaker Change] I actually obtained a fiscal, I was concerned about the bill, I actually voted against the bill. Although I'm glad you're introducing it to this bill. So I obtained the fiscal memo and it said no fiscal impact. Now whether that's within the realm of reality or not I don't know, but I did obtain that. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. I think my questions the same. It's $12 million appropriation. [Speaker Change] For what purpose does Representative Moore arise? [Speaker Change] To address the gentleman's point of order. [Speaker Change] You are recognized to address the point of order. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. It would be, have had a chance to review these amendments. I believe the amendment would be in order that it would not require referral or appropriations or anything. The bill is properly before us. There is no fiscal note. The gentleman does not have standing to request a fiscal not. But I believe the speaker pro teme is already advised in obtaining the fiscal note realized it was no, there was no kind of appropriation ??. I would just encourage the chair to rule the amendment in order and roll on. [Speaker Change] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none the question before. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] I've already called the question. Hearing none. Getting knocked off the track here. Hearing none the question before the house is the adoption of the Hager amendment. All in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 71 voting in the affirmative and 22 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Representative Hall you are recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [Speaker Change] H1133LB-149 Representative Hall moves to amend the bill on page 46 lines 29 through 41

Representative Holley, recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and this amendment does one thing and what it does is require that we continue our state policy to allow consideration of physically handicapped contractors, women contractor, small contractors, minority contractors and that they be allowed to participate in the process. As you look at the bill, you’ll see that that requirement has been removed from the Department of Commerce as they do economic development and that’s something that’s required throughout our state contracts, there’s a reason why we have that procedure and policy and again that is to help those groups that pay their taxes have an opportunity to compete in our contracting system. We know state government is the biggest business in the state. These are all small business and job creators in our community and so I’d ask that you support the amendment out to take the exemption out and put it back in the same footing with the rest of our state government practices. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, for what purpose does Representative Murry from Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I agree with contracting provisions that we have and the department administration, the Department of Commerce has asked the Department of Administration about the contracting process between the Department of Commerce and the public private partnership that the Department of Congress has entered into. And the Department of Administration readily acknowledges that this is a different contract, this is not a procurement contract. That Representative Holley has referred to. Man y of the other minority and small business owned provisions that we have in the contracting law, this is a much different entity. When we passed the budget the first year the budget refers to, the economic development partnership that has been worked on. This economic development partnership has made offers, job offers to existing state employees to come over. This would interject a relevant uncertainty to those who have been offered jobs. We could have dozen of people lose jobs because if this provision is adopted. And so I would ask that you vote against this amendment. Allow the Department of Commerce to move forward with this public private contracting process and make sure that they’re moving at the speed of business not at the speed of government. And that’s the whole goal of this economic development process. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Luebke of Durham arise? For what purpose does Representative Michaux of Durham arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Murry I guess a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me be sure in what I’m saying, this is Section 57 that we are talking about is that right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question to you sir, what is actually covered under Section 57? Because the way I read it, it says that the Department of Commerce says is authorized to contract with a North Carolina non-profit to provide one or more of the partner’s functions. Then the significant part of his is, the contract entered into pursuant to this section is exempt from Articles 3 and 3c of Chapter 143 of the General Statue. And my question is, Articles 3 and 3c, from 143 deal with the whole operation of the Department of Commerce and what your doing is your exempting this contractor from filing anything that they put in there. That’s what is appear to me. Is that true? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s not how I read the section, Representative Michaux. How I read it is a specific, this contract that we’re dealing with is specific to the Department of Commerce being authorized to contract with a North Carolina non-profit organization to perform various functions. So this section deals strictly with that non-profit corporation. That the Department of Commerce is contracting with to develop economic functions. All the other actions that you’re talking about that the Department of Commerce is engaged with aren’t subject to this section. This is strictly dealing with the contract between the Department of Commerce and the non-profit corporation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand that. Which means that any contract that the Commerce department’s enters into with this non-profit North Carolina corporation is not subject to any of the other restrictions or anything else like bidding and whatnot, outlined in Article 3 and 3c of Chapter 143. It exempts them from adhering to any of those items in there.

that of the polls of this year's time when we did that happen Wednesday : back-end up dead at age 50 and then that, and specifically the public, hardship, commerce's contract and live that would not be subject to the city Atty. Paul, a caricature Friday-that-and the other way to do that kind of an operation, and this man daily limit is 51 PM(SPEAKER CHANGES) today at the top banana day the stage is time, and then by the FTC Capital of port of the defection bills that they can't analyze it, commerce and the public, partnership and Asian economic development activities time that contract is not subject would under this provision would not be subject to the bidding process that has affected to this that contract relationship between the 15th time, the question of the black-and-and how to contact the alleged that the that the contractual relationship is happening toward the end of the puppet, more time with handle as saying that the type of contract in that poll did not happen too and hand-carved a whole time and again, if they can affect the fact that a good knowledge and that the contract with the pilot,(SPEAKER CHANGES) I'm in this, but, she is not a traditional, a contract from small-minority on this is a candidate for the state and North Carolina design that can provide economic development services which is not assigned to buy the shares the court that long for cleaning services and anytime this is not about it and one that would have to give the article 43, whichever one 43rd -hand knowledge of the contract, Venice-of-contract that has abandoned the corrections day coming to an end, they handed-life, we have of an out-front and the campaign in which the problem and not enough that the idea that this is something that is that they have felt that it can and cannot, finished a lifetime to them is that happening at the time of that, in contact to keep up with this data, the state of the data that was the final hole that can take a hit, and the dean of the Cajun-day event at a time when life than other states have enacted, and 1/2 day, commented, and fraction of that, contrary to what you that you can land because the time of the kind that became a wave of a haunted by the inactivity-time of day in the day, economic development of time, and that benefit them into an account of the financial planning, I'm dismayed when of situations where you Gotten have it happen that, this has been defended that the heavy data that can cause than a decade consequences of them, to give the help of hand, the news of the fish and they'll have to the capitol avenue that the distinction of the day, a late- taking and the estate of cocaine theft of the new strike of the contract you, but no luck in an economic development contract least not making contact with the money to give you time the contract today, after that, and they claim that they believe to, and that he not that bad of an accusation of the indefatigable the clinical data that goal, as a 10-day: not indicated that could happen again today, and all the family of death and not have been channeled ??......

Well, if you exempt that entity then that entity, it’s a rolling ball that gets bigger and bigger as it goes downhill. We cannot continue to eliminate and get around the rules of the state of North Carolina; that rules that were set here in the General Assembly to protect all of our citizens and to exclude or possibly keep somebody from just seeking a contract and that’s what some of this does. It’s wrong and I vote to take this out of the amendment because of the damage that it can do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. For what purpose does Representative Speciale of Craven arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, I’d like to ask a question of Representative Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, do you yield? Proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanna make sure that I understand it and hopefully that everybody understands what we’ve got here. This is talking about the contract that the department of commerce is going to make with one entity that is going to assist the state in economic development. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is not talking about any contracts that that entity might make with other entities on behalf of the state. Correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct. It doesn’t impact other contracts that the department of commerce might enter into. The operations of the public-private partnership are governed in the contract between the state and the department of commerce. There’s a whole host of requirements that are gonna be between the state and between this public-private partnership which will govern actions of the P3. The department of commerce enters into dozens of contracts. This provision doesn’t impact contracts that are entered into by the department of commerce. For other aspects, this only impacts the relationship between the P3 and the department of commerce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, so again and I know I’m being simple here by us going over this a couple of times but I wanna make sure that I understand and everyone else understands. This paragraph, this exemption only applies to the one contractor. This non-profit entity that they are contracting to assist the department of commerce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It applies to no other contracts that the department of commerce is gonna have with anyone else. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Millis of Pender arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I listened to debate; one thing I wanna point to all the members here is make sure we understand; if you actually read chapter 143, article 3 and 3c here, that we’re talking about is that this very provision does not eliminate anyone’s opportunity to receive this contract. The opportunity is available for all. This specific provision which I support this amendment whole heartedly, this specific provision that we’re eliminating by way of this bill is actually about the promotion of one over another. I make sure you understand this isn’t the very title here. 143-A. It says the word promotion. If you’re for equal opportunity for everyone, then you will not support this amendment. I wanna re-emphasize that, just get to hear a lot of rhetoric go back and forth. Hopefully, we’re all on the same page here. Please read the statute that we’re talking about and if you’re for equal opportunity for all, please do not support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Hall of Durham arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and of course what’s at issue here, I think someone said it’s about opportunity and that this doesn’t prevent people from competing. It just doesn’t have any requirement on the people who make the decision to be fair in the decision they make. So, everybody can compete. I’m just going as my buddies to do the work and give them the funds but all ?? bid all you want, bid all night. You can do all that, you get that opportunity but I don’t have any responsibility to fairly decide and award the contract. That’s important for us to understand what’s being said here because it was implied that somehow small contractors or minority contractors or physically handicapped contractors or women contractors who are covered under 143-48 purchases and contracts that somehow they would not have the ability to provide the services they would be requested in.

Public, private partnership arena. Of course that's not true. I would dare say, most of the organizations that would be in that arena would at least have a woman in that organization. We can't say that women don't have the ability to provide services that are needed in a public, private partnership. I would hope we wouldn't put that label on people who are handicapped or otherwise. The other myth that we just created is that there's only going to be one contract. This could be done time after time after time, there is no limitation on there being only one contract regarding the public, private partnership initiative. I think we need to be clear about what we are doing here and what we are doing is skirting the requirements of 14348 in this process unnecessarily. There's no justification being given, there's been no hearing saying this is necessary to do as a basis they were going overturn state law, as regards our small contractors, our handicap contractors, our woman contractors, and requirement that we report on our utilization of those citizens. They're citizens of North Carolina they should have the opportunity to be fairly consider and for us, once again, to say, no this is a honeypot for a friend of ours and what we're going to do, just like we talked about with the charter school disclosure. What we're going to do is set aside this honeypot for us to dip out for whoever our friends are and may be and we're going to take any restrictions that would prohibit that and make disclosure and fair bidding required. We're going to take that away. You don't have to report, you don't have to go through the procedure that the rest of North Carolina contracting go through and you can ahead and dip out for whoever you want. This is not just one contract, this is regarding 3P contracts or however there might be. Please read this legislation, it doesn't limit it. Again, who does it take safeguards away from, the people of the state of North Carolina. Does not require the bid processes to guard their rights and supposedly ensures we expend their revenues responsibly. I would ask that you support the amendment. Finally, one question about our ability to move quickly, there's no indication that we're not able to execute these particular contracts that are referenced because we're not moving fast enough, that people aren't applying for them, that there aren't enough people bidding for us to have a legitimate pool for us to draw from. That is not an issue either. What this does is once again take the review process, take the transparency away and let these contracts be left to people who don't necessarily have to provide the best service. I would say this, we've been down this road, we've recently seen it in state government where we've given contracts to people who don't provide the services. We don't have a clear review process for it, they end up deciding they don't want to provide the service later on and leave state government. They somehow get a special separation pay or allowance, and I think we're going down that road again. We need to shine a light on this. We need to take this provision out and let them uphold the same standards that we're trying to demand of everyone else contracting in state government and drawing from the peoples revenue that they pay in their taxes. I ask that you support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The question of the House is the adoption of the amendment sent forward by Representative Hall, of Durham. All in favor say aye, vote aye, excuse me. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 37 having voted in the affirmative and 59 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Hall, your recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] ATC166 Version 1. Representative Hall moves to amend the bill on page 42, lines 9 through 16. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall, you're recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment deals with the disclosure of the research that is done by our institutions and our state agencies that would be available. This currently, what is proposed here, once again, not having been fully ?? by committees in legislature here on the House side. Currently, what this says is confidentiality of research data records and information of a proprietary nature. These records and research are records and research that come from state agencies, that once again the people pay for, for this research to be done and in the instances where the research has not been patented, published, or copyrighted that information still would not be available to the people of North Carolina. Now, I submit to you that if the information was valuable and had need to be protected it could be patented, or copyrighted, or somehow otherwise protected. The people of North Carolina should have the opportunity to benefit, whether its a student who is doing further research, whether it is other institutions in our state who want to research the same subject matter, etc. That should be available and open. There's no reason why we should in an instance where there has not been sought to be protected, there's no reason why we should deny the rest of the North Carolinians or other institutions the opportunity to benefit from that research. Once again, the public paid for it, it belongs to the citizens of North Carolina, and there's no reason it should be under lock and key, if there is it should've been expressed and again, preserved, patented, copyrighted, or some other way protected. This is a lot of information data and once again we know the importance of being able to do research. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] What purposes does the Representative [??] rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] See if Representative Larry Hall would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Hall, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGE] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'll ask you a specific question, just to use a concrete example. We had a study commission on the death penalty awhile back. There were professors over at Carolina that had collected all this data, you know, against the death penalty for murder. But, there was a professor of statistics over there who was always asking them for their data. They never would actually give up the underlined data. Are you saying that a professor, for example, that has done research has got to turn over all the research as a public record? Jean Nichols, for example, has done all this work on poverty, so I can send him a public records request and find out what he's done to combat poverty in the last few years? That's my question. Is that how you would interpret the effect of your amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGE] No, that's not how I'd interpret the effect of my amendment. How I would interpret the effect of my amendment would be that if the information was produced at a state institution, in the conduct of commercial scientific or technical research then that information should be available. Now, I'm not sure if the information you're talking about being requested was conducted in those terms, I'm not sure who paid for it. But, this would allow for research that was done at state institutions, as the cost to the taxpayers to be denied by further use by other citizens in the state if it was done for these purposes. So, I'm not sure whether that fits your scenario or not, but thats the intent of my amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGE] One follow up. So, for professor at the law school collects a lot of data on the death penalty, because he wants to write some research on it and have a lot of opinions about it. The data that he collects, under your amendment, now to be a public record and I can get it for the cost of the copying. Is that what you're saying we should do? I'm not against that. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, that's what I'm saying. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'm just wondering if that's what you really are intending. [SPEAKER CHANGE] My intention is that if the research is paid for by the citizens of North Carolina and its being stored and collected, and its for these select purposes then it should be available upon request. Yes, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does Representative Avila of Wake rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You're recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You gentlemen have been arguing over words

[xx] I'm going to argue against this amendment on behalf of molecules, and it will cost the state of north carolina a lot of money if we remove this from technical corrections, because if you open up your early experiments and show the directions in which your heading, towards a discovery of a product, rather its chemical or physical and somebody gets a hold of that before gets a hold of that before you've had a chance to complete your experiments and go through out the very long drawn out process of patenting, somebody can pirate your information and say "I'm not going to go through the patent process, I'm just going to create it and start selling it", and its perfectly legal, and the taxpayers of north carolina, will lose every bit of the money that they've invested in that research, there are some very bad repercussions to removing this, and I would suggest that you vote against the amendment [change speaker] thank you, for what purpose does representative north cleveland arise [change speaker] to debate the amendment [change speaker] you'r recognized to debate the amendment [change speaker] members, I want to echo what representative avil has said, this provision was requested by north carolina state university, theres a lot of dynamic research going on at that university and representative avil touched on the point I want to make. You can't get to the point of getting the patent until the research is done, has been approved, has gone through that process, and prior to that period of time is when the protection is the most necessary, my friends if this amendments approved, there's no telling how much damage will be done to our research universities in this state, right now the universities are not releasing this data, but the wall is unsettled as to rather they have to, they feel like they don't have to because it would undermine millions and millions of dollars, hours of research they done put in. Go look at the centinial campuses, north carolina state. Why would we want to adopt an amendment that could undermine the research and the efforts that are occuring there right now? My submission is that the gentleman from Darum may not realize the deleterious effects his amendment would have if it were adopted, I would ask the body to overwhelmingly defeat this amendment [change speaker] what purposes does representative hager of rutherford arise [change speaker] debate the amendment [change speaker] your recognized to debate the amendment [change speaker] thank you speaker, you know they say everything's been said, but not every bodies said it,but I think i want to talk a little bit about what our research universities do, you've got unc charlotte, nc state you've got numerous research AMT all across the state that do great research that end up in patents that end up in copy writes, they end up in all these things, but as representative avil has said, it takes years to get there now lets say we publish that data this year, but its on a five year trek, that will never be realized, those institutions will never get the gain of that copy write or that patent so i agree with what representative morris said, this is a devastating to our research universities and I would ask the body to defeat this amendment [change speaker] what purpose does representative [xx] gifford arise [change speaker] to speak on the amendment [change speaker] recognized to speak on the amendment [change speaker] thank you mr speaker, members of the house, this may be the greatest storm provision in the world, i still haven't decided how I'm going to vote on the amendment, but i just wanted to vote on this point, this should be a separate bill that we look at this issue on its own, with a whole lot of reflection, through the normal legislative process [change speaker] for what purpose does representative hill darn arise [change speaker] to speak on the amendment [change speaker] your recognized to speak a second time [change speaker] thank you mr speaker, and ij think the discussion that was held on the floor today emphasises what the problem is in proceding in this nature, once again the question that comesb up and no one specified an event or situation that happened where supposedly the scientific boogie man came in and stole this data and used it to make money somewhere else, that was not specified, but the problem here is, this cuts off us having a discussion of even at what point should data be patented, what processes should be in place to maintain any secrecy of it and what should be available to the public, right now this just cuts it off and says you cant get it even if it hasnt been patented published ior copywrited, and of coarse those are protections that can be provided, representative moore talked about the question of rather or not, if during the process what you are working on should be available, well thats something that should be discussed, but its not provided for this bill and theres no distinction made in here for thiose

There would be considered to be of concern and other items that people want to put in the public domain, so we can have the public helps us move forward on finding any solutions or any cures or anything else with public research. And so again, I'd ask that you support the amendment and if we need to come back and setup some type of structure that would allow both public utilization of research as well as protecting whatever level of research is being done in private, that would make sense. But we're in the stone age if we're talking about not trying to have information available so we can draw on the most talented minds that have access and move issues forwards. So once again I'd ask that you support the amendment. If we need to come back, and have some extensive legislation provided then that discussion needs to be made. But it should not be in this technical corrections bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Torbid Orgaston arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak against the amendment. Please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, out of total respect for my colleague over there, I don't think he has revolved the research development tests and evaluation world. There are stipulations when you're working within the federal guidelines of research that they stipulate. And there are global entities and global countries out there that actually earn a pretty good living or derive revenue from creeping into other areas, taking good valid ideas and developing themselves. This, to protect our colleges, our institutions of higher learning, that the data, the research, the technologies, they create, and just on the verge of bringing out. We have to keep that protected. Just as independent businesses do in their private operations, they have to have some type of proprietary coverage, if you would, to protect that until it is ready to go public. And I fully and wholly hope we will defeat this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now the question before the House, is the adoption of the amendment sent forth by Representative Hall. All in favor, vote aye. All opposed, vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote. 28 in the affirmative and 65 in having voted in the negative, the amendment fails. Representative Jones, you're recognized to send forth and amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment AMH-99 version 1. Representative Jones moves to amend the bill on page 55 line 44. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, you're recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, this is a clarification, our county contacted our delegation. This is regarding to the clarifying the use of landfill fees. And this would allow, they've gotten some conflicting advice about this, but it allows them the flexibility these fees, for the collection of waste, collection of litter along public highways. I think we're all aware that, litter among the highways is a concern. And they have a program that they'd like to be able to actually use for local inmates to be able to pick up trash on the roads. They'd like to be able to fund that through some of their land fee use and I have spoke with Representative Moore and he had no problem with adding this to technical corrections. I do think it's a clarification. Because they have gotten conflicting legal advice. So we just wanted to clean that up for them. So we certainly would appreciate your support on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question for the house is the adoption of the amendment sent forth by Representative Jones. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. My what pretty colors on this screen. All green. The clerk will allot the machine to record the vote. 92 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Representative Greer Martin you're recognized to send forth and amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ASU-67 version 1. Representative Martin moves to amend the bill

On page 15, line 33 through page 18, line 8. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Martin, you’re recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. Members, the bill in its current form would eliminate the Child Fatality Task Force. This task force was established in 1991 and has been instrumental in combating threats to our children since that time. It’s done a lot of good work in recommending ideas to this body, many of which have been adopted under both Democratic and Republican regimes. My amendment would simply eliminate that section and ensure that the good work of this task force can continue. I’d urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Stam of Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I support the amendment. Yesterday in Rules I happened to be presiding because Representative Moore was the sponsor of the bill and as we were getting to the explanation I happened to see the repeal of this commission that I happened to sit on along with Representative Murray and Horne and Jim Fulghum actually fought to get on the commission, enthusiastic member. I said what in the world? Well I read in the Insider this morning that this was a Senate provision. But I checked with my Senator’s office because Tamara Barringer happens to be my Senator and she takes no paternity of this provision and she has no maternal love for it either. So it needs to go. I support the amendment. I don’t know where it came from. This is the last time I think in the Senate when somebody proposed to sunset this commission, they adopted an amendment to do it 50 years later, by Stan Bingham. I don’t know where it came from but it does good work. It makes good recommendations. Of all the commissions I’ve sat on, it’s the hardest working commission, where you actually have to show up and pay attention to experts and this just sort of came forth like Aphrodite from the sea foam of the Aegean, without mother or father. [LAUGHTER] For what purpose does Representative Jeter of Mecklenburg arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized to speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Y’all should hear, y’all don’t get to hear when he doesn’t have his mike on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know, I rise in favor of the motion. Just this week or last week, I read in the newspaper about the child welfare in North Carolina and how we rank compared to other states, and I don’t think anybody in this room should be proud of where we fell in those figures. And you know, we talk a lot, we pray every day. We pledge allegiance to the flag, and I think if there’s one thing we ought to do, it’s to make sure we protect our children. And I think this task force does that. And talking to my seat mate, Representative Stam, he prefers Latin, I prefer English. I just can’t imagine that repealing this is the right thing to do and I can’t encourage you more to vote to repeal the repeal, which I guess in this case means push green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, the question before the House is the amendment sent forth by Representative Martin. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 86 having voted in the affirmative and 4 in the negative, the amendment is adopted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. Excuse me. For what purpose does Representative Dollar arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] My finger didn’t quite work on there. I’d like to be recorded as voting no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You will be recorded as voting no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Goodman of Richmond arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to change my vote on the Hager amendment from no to aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So ordered. Representative Stevens is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ASU-66 version 2. Representative Stevens moves to amend the bill on page 25, line 40. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, you’re recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, these are both truly technical in nature. We have voted for them in separate bills. One of them even came back from the Senate, but it was Christmas Treed with a couple of things that we just couldn’t vote on. The first part of this is simply clarifying that when we said someone was a

Agent. It was for collecting liens and not for anything else. You’ll remember that we voted on the once before. The second part of the amendment actually has to do with being able to get an address from parents when they go to social services to get child support away from you they are required to give you the obligee parent’s address, the person who’s getting the money, is supposed to give you their address. Well, most of the time they’re not even there in court. So this simply says social services will provide you the address. That’s all these two things did. We voted on the lien agent, 114 to nothing. We voted on the second provision 117 to 1. Again, I ask for your support. We’ll put these in technical corrections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A little house keeping. For what purposes does Representative Dollar of Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To have my vote recorded as “aye” on amendment 5. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So noted. For what purpose does Representative Davis arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, could I please be recorded as voting yes on the Jones amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So ordered. Further discussion or debate on the Stevens amendment? Hearing none, the question before the house is the adoption of the amendment sent forward by Representative Stevens. All in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote... The clerk will lock the machine, record the vote. 91 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment is adopted. Representative Stam is recognized as sending forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ATR-23, version 3. Representative Stam moves to amend the bill on page 34, line 42. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, you’re recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I’m offering this on behave of two members who are not here today. Representative Samuelson shares our banking committee and Representative Blackwell was the primary sponsor last year of the bill involving, the manager of the bill involving protection of seniors from financial abuse. The underlying provision on page 34 of the bill relates to production of bank account information to try to see if seniors have been victimized. Apparently, some of the provisions in last years bill were not really feasible, didn’t give the banks quite enough time. So this is what Representative Blackwell, Representative Samuelson worked out with the banker’s association as a practical way to provide the information. I’d be glad to answer questions, but that’s what I know about it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the House is the amendment sent forward by Representative Stam. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote... The clerk will lock the machine, record the vote. 91 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the amendment is adopted. Representative Faircloth you are recognized as sending forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ARW-115 version 1. Representative Faircloth moves to amend the bill on page 55, line 7. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth you are recognized to explain your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is a pretty simple amendment. It addresses the Gifford Technical Community College, the new facility, Donald W. Cameron campus, out on highway 68, north of high point and near Greensboro. When that facility first was planned, they were primarily committed to developing global logistics studies and interactions out there with a lot of involvement from the aircraft industry. That role has changed some what in that they’ve broadened it into innovative resources for all types of industry and business. Originally they were granted in the 2011 bill to

Representative: …be able to rent a portion of the land and improvements of the community college to the GTCC, sorry, to the Carolina Center for Global Logistics, LLC. That arrangement has now evolved into the GTCCC Innovative Resources Corp. this amendment would simply allow them to do the same thing with this new group that they were allowed to do with the other. Also, it would give them the authority to grant venue to that particular route so if they are putting on some kind of promotion there on the campus. It is requested by the administration of the community college and has support of the local delegation. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the house is the adoption of amendment sent forward by Representative Bearclaw. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 93 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment is adopted. Representative Meyer is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. Clerk: Amendment AMN-61, version, Representative Myer moves to amend the bill on page 30, lines 40-44. Speaker: Representative Meyer you are recognized to explain your amendment. Representative: Representative Stan and I talked about an amendment to this provision. The provision is intended to give teachers a little flexibility in the course of their daily duties. To just be able to keep records using software that may fit a teacher’s needs, to help them not have to do everything the state’s information management system, if that is system is overly burdensome. The language was a little troubling because it seemed that it would be possible to give teachers the right to use something even if their local education agency, school district, or principal, wanted to use something else. So we simply amended the language to make it clear that a teacher can use an alternative system as long as they are reporting the requirements to their local education agency, the state or the federal government. \Speaker: For what purpose does Representative Singer arise? Representative: To speak on the amendment. Speaker: You are recognized to speak on the amendment. Representative: Thank you MR. Speaker. I would like to thank Representative Meyer for pointing that out to me and the good work that we worked on together just to make sure the language was clarified, and made everybody comfortable. This describes something that would allow teachers a little more flexibility in the classroom but also protects student data, and makes sure they work with them what we are trying to accomplish statewide. Thank you. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the house is the adoption of amendment sent forward by Representative Meyer. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 92 having voted in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The amendment is adopted. Representative Hamilton, you are recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. Clerk: Amendment ATC-165, version 5, Representative Hamilton moves to amend the bill on pages 39, lines 35-43. Speaker: Representative Hamilton you are recognized to explain your amendment.6 Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Very simply put, this amendment changes the language in the technical fractions bill to allow for the new pilot virtual charter schools to still be subject to the oversight and potential terms and conditions as laid out by the NC board of education. Until such time that we have an approved program, not a pilot program, it is my opinion that we would be best served by watching these while they are in the pilot stage and then come back at a later date and move them into the status of the other charter schools, and I would ask for your support. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the house is the adoption of amendment sent forward by Representative Hamilton. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 60 having voted in the affirmative and 30 in the negative. The amendment has been adopted. House will be at ease. For what purpose does Representative Brandon of Guilford arise? [Speaker Change] I made it in the chamber in the nick of time. And I would like to be voted, vote green. [Speaker Change] So recorded. For what purpose does Representative Brawley of Mecklenburg arise? [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker I'd like to run my seatmate's amendment as he is engaged in another high priority item at the moment. [Speaker Change] Please hold one, the clerk will read. [Speaker Change] Amendment ATL-70. Representative Brawley moves to amend the bill on page 50 lines 19 and 20. [Speaker Change] Representative Brawley you are recognized to explain your amendment. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the house it's a fairly straightforward amendment. There's a provision in the bill for a charter school to experimentally attempt to reengage dropouts and get them back into high school and graduated. The change here merely allows students to be transferred to the charter school before they dropout instead of actually having to have them dropout and then come back in. That's the only change it makes. I ask for your support. [Speaker Change] Further discussion or debate? Hearing none the question for the house is the adoption of the amendment sent forward by Representative Brawley. All in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 93 having voted in the affirmative, and none in the negative. The amendment has been adopted. House will be at ease. Ladies and gentleman of the house we are at a point in this bill where we are going to open the floor for general discussion and debate. Don't everybody light your light up at one time. For what purpose does Representative Blust of Guilford arise? [Speaker Change] Let's get this party started. [Speaker Change] Speak on the bill. You are recognized to speak on the bill, the timer is on. [Speaker Change] I'll kick off the party Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] Please do. [Speaker Change] And I am going to reluctantly but need fully vote no to this bill. I just don't think this represents very good legislating. Know the best pastor I ever heard speak was Dr. Vance Havner and he for a long time back in the 70's my church at home did not have a pastor and he was guest pastor numerous times, back when I was in college. Heard him in person some but my mother used to buy the tape of every sermon from church and send it to me when I was in college and I'd throw it in a drawer somewhere and it was really years later that I've ran across those things. And I started listening to em in my car, and listened to him til I wore them out, it was a cassette player and I regret I don't have em anymore. And I remember Dr. Havner saying I get a little bit nervous about how we sing these hymns and do these different things in church, and never really give it deep thought to exactly what we're doing. And I think that here sometimes that we just take our eye off the big picture that we are making the law for the people of this state in a represent in a republic where we're elected to come here and sit on their behalf. And I think it requires a whole lot more deliberation, calm, reason, and good process, because if you'll look at your constitution on article

Section 12, right of assembly and petition. The people have a right to assemble together to consult for their common good and instruct their representatives. And to apply to the general assembly to a redress of grievance. When we move too fast, when we do things in a comprehensive way that all of the provisions can’t be looked at individually with the proper deliberation, we are in effect, taking away from those people their right to instruct their representatives. And I know even as a representative down here who understands things work, I see how things are moving, and I can’t keep up. With how fast things move from time to time. Now this bill has a subject, has different subjects that run the gamut from A to Z. It’s got subjects that are not just technical. I can see doing this when it’s truly technical corrections, but a lot of these are substantive provisions that lumped together in one comprehensive bill at the end of session. Some of them are things that, are provisions that passed as bills. Some of them are things that should be run as separate bills. We’re bypassing the proper committee doing it this way with many of these provisions. A lot of them were J, Judiciary provisions. And I just hate to make the law that the people have to obey in this manner. I just think we owe them more. Maybe all of this is going to be good and work out. We did find some things in committee that were taken out. I’m not sure if there’s not things there nobody’s really noticed yet or thought of yet that we won’t find out until later. And I just think we owe the public more. I’m sorry I have to be the one to get up and say this, but I have been thinking about Doctor Folgum. And I think he’s making all of us take a closer look at ourselves. And are we the legislators, are we the people we’re supposed to be. And I think we need to stop and take a look at ourselves a little bit here, because this is not the way law is supposed to be made. I’ll give you another reason why I’m nervous about this bill. We’re teeing this thing up late. It’s going over to the Senate and how many times have we seen the Senate wait, put something else very major in material into a House bill, send it back over the last day of session and it’s take it or leave it. And I’m worried we’re giving them a vehicle to do all kinds of things, And I think that this way of doing business allows some provisions to be put into the law that wouldn’t make it on their own but they’re mixed together with things that we do want and the bad gets passed on with the good. So I think we just need to slow this down. I don’t, you know how many times have I as a member been told, Can’t that wait until next session? Can’t that wait? I don’t see much here that can’t wait until January. Another bad potential that comes from doing law this way is How do you know the process? We have bill filing deadlines. We have bill limits. We have a single subject rule. Now how many people can go to their bill limit, Oh I’ve still got this other matter, I’ll just wait until the of session and put it in this comprehensive- What is it? Technical and other changes? Which does not limit the subject at all. Some people with better connections are gonna have a different amount of hurdles they have to pass to get something enacted into law that they want than other members. I just wonder, I noticed NC State had asked for something. One of the provisions we debated. How did NC State know you could go to a member here and get something inserted into the law, rather than go to someone who represents that area and get it introduced as a bill? Why did the process differ for one interest that wanted a change in the law whereas many times I’m sure you’ve had this happen.

How many times have you had somebody give you an idea or say you guys ought to do this and you say, "Well, it's too late, the bill filing deadline's passed. We can't do that till next year." And why is there one process for some people or some entities and a different process for others? I think if we want to honor rule of law, and that's what makes us different from other countries, we have rule of law, part of that is how the laws are enacted and we need to honor that at all times and give the public confidence that procedures are followed, proper consideration is given to all the bills, to all points of view. People have a notice and an opportunity to be heard before the law is enacted. That they're penalized if they don't follow. And we look at the polling numbers and I know so many times as politicians, we look at them with just a view for the next election. But over time, when the institutions that make our laws are consistently rated terribly low, what is that going to do long term to the rule of law? Because, and I'll close on this, if you think about it, rule of law is voluntary. There's not enough police, jail, prisons to hold more than even 1% of our population, so we must rely on people voluntarily submitting to the law and respecting the law and I think we owe a very respectable process or enacting the law at all times. And I think we should give that a whole lot more consideration than we do. So I'm going to vote no to this bill. I don't know it well enough. I don't like this process and I'm just not going to be a part of enacting the law that way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. For what purpose does Representative Moore of Cleveland arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized for a motion. It's not what you think. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side on Amendment 10 offered by my good friend, Representative Hamilton, and I did give her advance notice I was going to do this. I do move to reconsider the vote by which that amendment was adopted and would ask to be heard on the motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're recognized to explain your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Speaker, members. The amendment that was adopted had to do with the charter schools and the virtual charter schools in the process of the assignment of who was handling the bill and different issues. That was going to fall under the domain of Representatives Horn and Samuelson, neither of whom were here and yours truly was engaged in another conversation. This amendment was defeated yesterday in the House Rules Committee under concerns that it would essentially further inhibit the ability of the charter schools to manage those schools. I'm prepared to let other proponents for charter schools speak once the motion comes back before us. But I've had several members who've come to me who were upset realizing they had voted for the amendment when they, had they realized what the full impact of the amendment was they would have voted no. So with that said, I do respectfully move that we reconsider that vote. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Luebke of Durham arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the motion to reconsider this 60-30 vote do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. You've heard the motion. You have heard the motion from Representative Luebke to lie, the motion of Representative Moore upon the table. Ladies and gentlemen, you've heard the motion on the floor. All in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Thank you for the calisthenics, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Twenty-nine having voted aye and sixty-two voting no. That motion fails. Representative Moore, you're recognized for your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe the motion to reconsider is proper before the body again. I would urge the body to support the motion to reconsider. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, you've heard the motion on the floor. All in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 58 having voted in the affirmative and 33 in the negative, the motion to reconsider has been adopted. Now we are back on the Hamilton amendment. Representative Moore, you are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think it was Representative Murray who made the comment the other day that this is not my dog but I'm walking it and again put a leash on it. And this is appropriate. This is, members, the language that would have been put in or that is being proposed to be put in by this amendment would have several bad affects. Number one, it would differentiate between the virtual charter schools and the regular charter schools. There have been some, and it also allows, it spells out the State Board of Education may impose terms and conditions that restrict even the membership of the Board of Directors of a non-profit corporation operating a virtual charter school. The rationale, the reason this was defeated in the Rules Committee yesterday was because there seemed to be no reason to treat a virtual charter school different from a regular charter school and I see the expert, Representative Forum, has arrived once again but this, and Representative Samuelson did a much better job than I did explaining this in the committee but the thought of the Rules Committee and the thought I would take as the sponsor of this bill is that we probably ought to treat virtual charter schools and any other charter schools the same. I think they should be subject to the same, the public schools, they need to be subject to the same rules and regulations. I don't want to get into that whole can of worms and debate that took up a lot of time already this morning about the charter school bill but I just see no reason to differentiate between the two so with all due respect to my good friend, ??Newt Hanover, I would have to ask the members to please oppose the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purposes does Representative Hamilton and ??Newt Hanover arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You are recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. And with all due respect to my very good friend from Cleveland County, Representative Moore, I'm going to ask that you support this bill. And again, it is simply for the reasons that today we do not have virtual charter schools in North Carolina and there is a provision in our budget that would provide for two pilot programs; a budget what obviously we have not seen the light of in recent days; we are doing technical corrections anyway so in preparation for that I think it's only reasonable that we vet the virtual school, charter school process while it is still in the pilot program and then we can again come back and change to make them consistent with other charter schools after we have some time to evaluate how they function in the state. I ask for your support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does Representative Michaux of Durham arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the matter before us. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You are recognized to speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] This is going to be an interesting vote. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The reason it is going to be interesting is because with our leadership in here, you all voted for it and now leadership has come in here and said well, we don't want this. Now what you gonna do? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I think we all know. The question before the House is the adoption of the Hamilton amendment. All in favor vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. As that old saying goes, there is nothing new under the sun, the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 34 having voted in the affirmative and 62 in the negative, the amendment failed. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does Representative Stam of Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] First, an inquiry. I wonder if through the clerk, you could advise us, how long we have been on this bill today? [SPEAKER CHANGE] We've enjoyed it quite a bit. [SPEAKER CHANGE] If I could speak briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGE] We began this swing set edition of a piece of legislation at 11:23 and I say swing set because it has more parts than a swing set but please continue. [SPEAKER CHANGE] If I may also speak briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] We've considered this quite a long time. The Rules Committee considered, had a two hour meeting yesterday, the large bulk of the meeting was this bill. All amendments were considered, all debate was considered. There was no shortening of any, no questions that were left unanswered, you know, time

Is short. You can spend forever on this bill. But this is a lot more time than we typically spend on a technical correction bill even with substain and provision. And I think that this is not a proper legislative process has fall short of actuality. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Your opinion is quite taken although most of us don't have the blessing or curse to serve own rules so the discussion will continue. For what purpose does Representative Speciale of Craven arise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If this the proper legislative procedure then I think we need to change the procedure. Section 64 has a ?? program to raise high school drop out age from 16 to 18. I don't know how many of you had the chance to look at that. But I find it ?? it right, we gonna try this in a couple of counties and for those poor subjects living in those counties, if they don't go to school until they are 18, they'll find themselves charged with a Misdemeanor. And I don't how we can do that in a couple of counties while the counties next door to them and through out the state, they can quit at 16 and not be charged with a Misdemeanor. So I think the whole concept of it, I understand the point behind it but I think the whole concept, the way it's written with what penalties are and everything takes it way off course. This is just one of the problems I have with this bill but this is a major one. Again, we are gonna be looking at penalizing or criminalizing kids not going in one or two counties while everyone else should they chose to not go to school, should they choose to drop out will not get their penalties. I don't think this is a good way of doing business. I think this whole section here is something that needs to be looked at deliberately and possibly in a long section and there's quite a few other things in this bill I think that need to be looked individually in individual bills and through the long sessions. So I'm not going to be able to support it and I hope you don't support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does representative Stam of Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will representative Speciale answer a question or will representative Wills prefer? I was gonna ask a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know those provisions in the bill that are already passed to house while the guy is sitting behind you and we have considered it in flow by itself. I don't technically agree to that bill myself. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will it pass the senate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, obviously not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does representative Wales arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This actually is a technical amendment/correction. This bill was passed by the house and the senate at the request of two Catawba county school systems, all three were asked if they wanted to pursue this program. We have number of things going on in the community that allows alternative for students that want to drop out. We are trying to keep kids in school. We have already endorsed this concept as a ?? program. this merely corrects some issues of enforcement. Some six-eight months after we pass the bill, the LEAs has came to me and said we have the right to do this but we have some enforcement issues. This allows them to handle the bill as it was originally intended. I ask you all to support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does representative Stone arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Speaker. To change my vote on the ?? from No to yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sum notred. For what purpose does representative Bumgardner of Gaston arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question and to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to ask a question. Who would you like to direct it to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask representative Stam a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam yields. Proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Stam, how many people are on the rules committee? How many members? Approximately. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thirty. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. I just want to make a comment and I want to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, Thank you. This bill is quite long, it's 55 pages, yes technical corrections but there are all kinds of hidden stealth in here Representative Stam with all due respect has said that they debated the bill at ?? with rules, I am not on that committee and

Until I got here this morning that’s the first time I seen some of this stuff in this form. We may have debated these in other bills, in other forms. That’s true. Probably have, we’ve probably debated all of this stuff at one time or another, but here it is all together in one big package and I personally would like to have more time to look through this and look at it and see what issues there are that I may have a problem with. I’m sure they’re some, and some of these sections of this bill are very good. I like some of them, but here it is a great big, a conglomeration and again, it’s 55 pages of a bill that I have to look at the best I can here in the time allotted which is about an hour and a half right now and decide yes or no, is this bill more…is there more good to it than bad and at this point, I don’t know and I would appreciate having more time to look over this and study it before I have to make a definitive statement and then explain why I voted for this or that or the other thing that may be in this bill. So at this point I’m gonna have a hard time voting yes on this right now. Thank you. [speaker changes] For what purpose does Representative Millis of Pender arise? [speaker changes] To speak very briefly on the bill. [speaker changes] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise today not to speak negatively about this bill. A few things have been discussed and in regard to the process, I appreciate the opportunity to have read this last night, I’m very grateful that it was put out there, but I have to ask for you all’s help on something. I think we have an unintended consequence that we need to possibly address in future sessions. I don’t know if there’s a possibility to reconsider some things, but about section 52, when it has to do with what is not public records by our state universities. Now, I definitely support everything that Representative Avila articulated about why there’s aspects that need to be protected about data and things of that nature as we move through a process, but an unintended consequence that we may be actually covering by way of this large blanket that’s entered into this bill is a scenario that’s playing out right now in our public universities. That is that we have some professors that are actually being hired by private consultants to do certain data and research, and one of those professor’s have actually released results on the universities very letter head, even though that he has been hired in a private capacity and is actually…it’s very unfortunate. The language we’re passing here gives a broad blanket by the university whenever the taxpayers ask, well if this was issued on the university letterhead what else was done with taxpayer dollars at the private individuals expense. I’m all for everything that was articulated about why this is needed, but I definitely support Representative Hall’s amendment and I hope that we could reconsider this. Whether today or, I know everybody’s beat down here, but maybe in the future. Legislators, I hope I would have your support on fixing this first thing next session. We want to get at the actually root problem, but we want to take care of the unintended consequences. Thank you for your time and consideration. [speaker changes] Thank you. For what purpose does Representative Pittman of Cabarrus arise? [speaker changes] To debate the bill. [speaker changes] You are recognized to debate the bill. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. You know, a while ago I actually voted for Representative Hall’s amendment because I considered it adverse to a bill I voted against when it came up on it’s own and so I thought that was a good thing to do. I too share concerns Representative Blust and some others have mentioned about this process of throwing stuff together. A lot of times we put things in these bills that couldn’t pass on their own. And so you kind of throw it in here and say well maybe we’ll sneak it by. I just don’t think that’s a good way to do things. I don’t mind having to explain my vote on a stand- alone bill to my constituents, but I sure would hate to have to vote for this because it has some good stuff in it and explain why I voted for something that had some bad stuff in it. So I hope next year we’ll change this process and stop doing this and let stuff stand on its own. Stand or fall without being thrown into a piece of sausage like this. So I ask you to vote no. [speaker changes] For what purpose does Representative Collins of Nash arise? [speaker changes] Mr. Speaker, I have two questions concerning transportation issues. I guess I want to address them to Representative Iler or Representative Torbett or whoever could…whoever feels qualified to answer them. [speaker changes] Representative Torbett…?

Do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Collins, do turn around. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Torbett yields. My first question is section 56.6 on page 45. It’s called, “Limitation on Variants.” I understand I’m reading with heightened sensitivities because a lot of us in rural areas, once we’ve begun to see how the DOT scores a lot of our division projects, are nervous already about what we agreed to last year as far as this three part division of money. If I’m reading this right it looks like to me, apparently they can already vary by 5% every five years in the way we divided the money out. I think it was 40:40:20 or 40:30:30 that we eventually agreed on? It looks like to me that they can miss it by as much as 5% every five years. Now if we pass this bill they can miss it by as much as 10% every five years which means we may be losing more of that division money that we have allocated to us to higher tiers perhaps. I know it can go the other way as well, but I know which way we fear it’s more likely to go... [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purposes does Representative Brawley of Mecklenburg arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I would like to address the gentleman’s issue with permission of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Wonderful. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Brawley you are recognized to answer the questions. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Chairman. It does not allow the allocation of money. It allows the working on projects. As we are aware, when you are designing a project; getting it ready to let, sometimes there’s an, “Oh, by the way...”, there’s an environmental problem, there is some, perhaps a law suit, or there is a delay. Experience has shown that only 80% of the projects actually slatted to be begun are, in fact, begun. What this allows the DOT to do is work on projects equal to 110% of the money allocated to a particular area, and does not allow them to spend more than 100% of the money. It is simply a tool to allow DOT to stay on timeline targets to get the roads up as quickly as possible. It will not cause a rural project not to be funded it will simply mean that a project already scheduled to be completed quicker so that the rural project will in fact be addressed sooner. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I have a second question. On page 59 there’s a long section there in which over and over and over again the words “Secondary Roads Counsel” is crossed out, and the word DOT is put in in its place, and I’m just wondering is that a substance of change we are making? Is that something where we are taking either money or authority or something away from this group called the “Secondary Roads Counsel” and giving that over to the DOT as a whole, and if so, does that any effect on the rural areas? I’ll direct that question to Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore you are recognized to ease our concerns. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The Counsel no longer exists. That's why it’s being removed. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does Representative Meyer of Orange arise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] You are recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker, I’m one of the newest members of this body and everyone here has been very kind to me, and the short session help me get my barrings. As I sat here today and I listened to Representative Blust, Representative Speciale, Representative Pittman, Representative Bumgardner I found that I agreed with them. I realized that, 40 years of being a Liberal and trusting in my governments and representing Orange and Durham counties, nothing has made me more of a proponent of small government than being in a House of Representatives for three months... [SPEAKER CHANGE] Welcome to the House of Representatives. [SPEAKER CHANGE] ...and so I stand with them in opposition to this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The question before the House is the passage of house bill 1133 on it’s second reading as amended. The Clerk will...the stations are being unlocked. That was just a drill.

Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could the House be at ease for just a moment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s a possibility. The House be at ease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another drill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1133 on its second reading as amended. All in favor vote aye. All opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sit down. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Unless you want to do it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will lock the machine and record the votes, 60 having voted in the affirmative and 39 in the negative. House Bill 1133 has passed its second reading and without objections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been heard from Representative Luebke of Durham. This bill. The House will be at ease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Members, I move to suspend the rules the answer that the House can take up third reading of House Bill 1133 will ask to be heard on that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. SPEAKER CHANGES] Members this ah and,and I communicated this earlier today to the House Minority Leader. The ah[??]. We need to go ahead and get third reading to get this over based on the way things are progressing right now with the Senate. This bill is time sensitive and unfortunately, the only alternative if we do not do third reading today would be to have a session at 9 a.m. tomorrow. So that’s the practical facts. So regardless where you are on the merits of the bill, would ask the Body to at least suspend the rules to go ahead so we could vote on the bill today and get to the Senate. I would remind the Minority that when I was in the Minority although I voted against bills at times, I always voted for those kinds of measures when it meant we’re at the end of session and we were trying to get bills back and forth to the Senate and the House. There are, there are negotiations on going right now on the budget and on a number of other matters. And the bottom line is this bill needs to be, needs to go to the Senate today. So I would ask the Body regardless of your position on this bill to vote to suspend the rules so that can happen. Otherwise, we’ll have to be here tomorrow morning. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask the Rules Chair a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, you indicated that the bill is time sensitive and then if it doesn’t go to the Senate today, something is going to happen. What’s going to happen if the bill does not go to the Senate today that’s gonna affect whether or not we get a budget or the schedule that we’re gonna adjourn on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Doesn’t go today, it goes tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Representative Hall if I may add, depending upon the negotiations with the Senate, there may not be any legislative session votes next week. So the time sensitivity has more to do with the fact that if we do not move it, it could, it could remain in this Chamber for more than a week. And that, that is more the issue rather than today versus. Or Saturday versus Monday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well Mr. Speaker, to the Rules Chair another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Should we pass this bill or should this bill come out of the Chamber today and the Senate still not cooperate in whatever fashion that we would want, are they obligated to do anything as the result of receiving the bill today or tomorrow? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well the Senate. I mean. We can’t obligate the Senate to do anything. It would be nice if we could. But can’t obligate them to do anything. But what we. We need to have it over there, Representative Hall. This isn’t any kind of game or anything. This is trying to have things ready to go. Because at this point, we may have to be here next week. Everything else that was on our calendar is cleared and it’s gone. This is the only bill. So it just doesn’t make sense to me that we would come back tomorrow or one day next week for one bill. That just doesn’t make sense. So it’s not about the position on the bill, it’s about the expediency of getting the thing done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose.

Speak on the motion and then ask you a question. [Speaker Change] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the motion. [Speaker Change] I support the motion. I do remember a few years ago when Jim Black asked us to vote on a, an actual budget before the money report had even been passed out. And it was late at night you know, 10 o'clock and I said Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker could we have 15 minutes to read this 700 page budget you know, the conference report? And he gave us an hour, and I felt so good I had done something. So my question to Representative Moore if I may ask him a question. [Speaker Change] Representative Moore does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Change] I yield [Speaker Change] The gentleman yields. [Speaker Change] Representative Moore if the motion to suspend passes would you consider a recess for lunch so those who wanna you know, explore further ramifications of a section here, or a section there might have 20, 30, 40 minutes to peruse their law books? [Speaker Change] I would and one more thing I wanted to point out Representative Stam. If you'll notice at no point today did anyone cutoff debate on this bill. A full debate was allowed on this bill. No amendments were tabled, everything was you know, allowed to proceed. And so yes if that's what, if folks generally want more time to study that bill, certainly it makes more sense to do it today if that means giving a half-hour, or an hour where people can grab lunch and come back, that's fine. And I just wanna address the other thing, we've tried to afford plenty of time on this process I mean let's cut to the chase. There's been about what, four provisions that people would deem controversial and there were amendments run, people debated em, and had it discussed. Most all this other stuff folks is technical. I mean you're talking about commas, you're talking about getting where a commission no longer exists. There's nobody trying to pull anything over on anybody. The ?? Bill’s in a lot of ways like for example the JMAC provision was added for Representative Presnell that's already passed this house floor. So this is not something new that's not, that new unseen a lot of this stuff, stuff we already sent over. But from a negotiating standpoint of a house members would be wise to vote to suspend the rules and to support this bill. Again if you wanna vote against the bill fine, vote your conscience, but at least allow the procedure to go forth. Because otherwise it puts the house in a difficult position in negations. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] Representative Luebke please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To speak on the motion. [Speaker Change] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the motion. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker and members of the house I object to the motion to suspend the rules, and I'll vote no on that. And I urge you to do so also. Number of members have spoken about the fact that this bill really has many provisions in it that ought to be in the long session or ought to be considered as individual bills. I wanna note that there was a section in dealing with criminal justice. [Speaker Change] Representative Luebke teh Chair is going to keep the debate on the motion to reconsider, or to hold the vote today, and not on the merits of the bill. That would be done with a full and unlimited debate on third reading at whatever time that occurs. Either later today or tomorrow. But if the gentleman will just simply remained focused on the merits of the motion. [Speaker Change] Yes sir my reference to criminal justice actually is on the merits of the motion. Representative Moore spent at least 5 minutes talking about the components of one section that dealt with criminal justice, that's the first time any of us have really heard that. The substance there belongs in Representative Daughtry's judiciary committee, it's just one example of the way things have been rushed through. I doubt that anybody here has read the bill, well I know a couple people said they have. But almost everyone, no-ones raising their hand, just a few are raising their hands. OK we've got it up to 5. That means 115 of us have not read the bill. Also when it's referenced that the bill had a 2 hour meeting in rules, it's important to remember that 24 members, there are 24 members on rules, I've counted it Representative Stam it's not 30. There are 24 members on rules, so for the rest of us, for the 96 of us there was no discussion til now. So to cut it short all I'm asking is that we hear this bill on Monday night which was the normal process that I heard yesterday. That's what could easily happen if we vote no on the motion, we actually would have time to read the bill and perhaps prepare more amendments that

...what we can do if we object to third reading. If we object to the motion to suspend the rules, the third reading can happen. The third reading shouldn't happen today for the reasons that many, many people have said and I urge you to vote no on the motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Representative Moore a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, when was this bill first available for us as members of the House to read? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was earlier in the week, Representative Collins. I don't know exactly. There was an initial draft that was filed sometime ago but it didn't have all of the material that's in here now. We had a work group that met with Senate and in central staff that met for several weeks. We've probably had 9 or 10 meetings on this. As far as when it was...I'll put it to you this way, I had information in my office, I had some folks who actually came by. A number of folks said, "Can you include something in technical corrections?" And we'd say yes. We've been taking those requests from both sides of the aisle all year long. And then as far as the bill, I've had it available, drafts, in my office. As far as members looking at it, let's see, what's today, today's Friday, I'm guessing probably since Wednesday would be a guess of when it was out there. But we certainly let folks know because most folks who've had an interest have come in and said they've had an interest and those folks have known for awhile. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you consider it reasonable that members of the House could have read this 55 page bill in the last two or three days had they had the desire to do so? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would think so and I understand there's a lot going on and a lot of things out there, but it's been made available. We sent the draft of the bill out the night before the rules committee meeting so that folks had that. We've tried to make it as open a process as possible and I would just, I remember years ago, not under this speaker, not under the previous speaker, but years ago when this thing literally, I'm not exaggerating, you'd burn your finger on the staple. I mean it was that hot because it just come off the printer. We didn't have the dashboard then. And you didn't know what was in there and it was more than this. I mean, this is, it does have substantive provisions. It does have substantive provisions, but where there's substantive provisions, I've stood here and I've told you, it's substantive provisions. But it's generally not controversial except for the ones where the amendments have run. The child task force, whatever the other things were. But the other stuff is stuff that needs to happen for the good of the State. It's stuff that would pass. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker, could I make a brief comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not privileged to serve on the rules committee, either, but I did know this bill was coming out so I did look for it and did read it. And I would say if we haven't had time to read the bill that maybe it's just a statement on how we treat legislation, I don't know. It's certainly been available long enough for everybody that wanted to to read it, get their questions asked. I had several questions that I asked several members that were related to the various aspects of it. I had a couple that I really couldn't get a good answer to. Nobody seemed to know the answer or maybe I didn't ask the right person. That's why I asked them here on the House floor. But I would say if you haven't read the bill, I certainly wouldn't admit to that, but to me that's more of a personal problem than it is a procedural problem on this issue because it's been there long enough for us to read it. So I'm going to support the motion to go ahead and vote on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, just by way of clarification, the Chair is actively involved in the budget negotiations and discussion and at this point the Chair would judge it it's as likely as not that we would not have a session on Monday. So the Chair has the decision, and it solely the decision of the Chair, to have this on this session on Saturday to dispose of this bill. Largely because many of our members are not near Raleigh, they'd be going home and coming back specifically for the third reading of this bill and nothing more on Monday night. It seems more appropriate to take this matter up while they're in town rather than have that occur. That would be the reason for the Chair's decision to hold session on Monday morning for that purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Isn't it also true that the Senate held a skeleton session today and is adjourned so that they, subject to receipt of this, so the purpose of to receiving this bill today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. I'm sorry, Representative Hall, if you'll yield. Representative Jones, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask if Representative Luebke would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Luebke. Sometimes we don't always agree and we don't vote together, but we're friends and we have good conversations together. And I just want to ask you, we're going through this process, which is going to take awhile and I think most everybody...

This chamber knows how the vote’s going to end up. And you know and I know and I think most everybody here knows that you’re not going to win this vote. My question is would you consider withdrawing your objection if the rules Chair agreed to an extended recess this afternoon to give you an opportunity to consider the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir, and the reason is that to have a couple hours over lunch hour, or an hour, is simply not going to make a difference. We do need the weekend to look at this. To truly know what’s in the bill. So I thank you for the question, but a lunch hour break is not enough for us members to actually know what’s in the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, just by way of clarification, the Chair is happy to create a recess of hours if that fits with people who do believe that in their judgment that if they were given that amount of time it would be sufficient time to take a vote. Representative Lupke’s comments notwithstanding. And again, it’s purely on the basis of the high likelihood that we will not be here next week. Or at least a fairly high likelihood that we will not be here next week. And that is why we will have session tomorrow morning or later today at the Chamber’s pleasure. Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and of course Ladies and Gentlemen of the house, I think Representative Jones said it, but maybe not so accurately because sometimes the majority votes. Sometimes they reconsider their vote. Sometimes they change their vote. Don’t know if it’s an epiphany or some other force moving within the Chamber that causes that to happen. So we’ll just keep our faith in that. I appreciate Representative Moore and others who would say that they would like to fulfill the oath I took to represent the people of my district. And so they will review and determine what we get to see. And ask us to just have faith in whatever they want to do is good for the people of North Carolina. But unfortunately, we probably all took an oath. WE probably all have some due diligence we should perform. Some responsibility to try to read what it is we’re going to vote on and obligate the people of North Carolina to abide by. So even though that’s a great offer and would probably take a lot of pressure off of a lot of people, I as one could not accept that offer to fulfill my duty to my constituents. We didn’t get here today. We got here through the course of this session, so I don’t know if this is an emergency of our own creation or how it got to be an emergency. I understand now that the Senate has a skeletal session that has adjourned. And again, I’m not sure how any guarantee of a good outcome happens by us rushing through and not knowing what’s in this bill. The issue of having a bill show up yesterday in Rules, and have several amendments in Rules, and then have several amendments today and for someone to say they know what’s in the bill- Well you couldn’t know what was going to be in the bill this morning when you studied it last night, because you didn’t have the amendments. And you couldn’t know the night before what the total bill was because you didn’t have the amendments we ran in Rules. So this idea that someone out there clairvoyant or otherwise knew what was going ot be in that bill today, 2 days ago, I don’t think it happened. So let’s stop fooling ourselves on that. Now, I understand there was a workgroup out there as was indicated. I don’t know how many Democrats were in that workgroup, had an opportunity to come back and survey our caucus. WE certainly don’t have a caucus director, so she couldn’t bring the information back to us as staff. So now we’re forced, even though we vote 85 plus percent or more time with the majority on issues, we don’t know. We been handicapped by the flow of information, the lack of staff, the lack of procedural regularity. And now we’re being asked to just vote and say it’ll be OK. Maybe. So I would ask that you not suspend the Rules. Let’s try to get back to some process so we all can feel good about what we’re supposed to be doing. If it takes an extra day, it may take an extra day. You seen these bills before when they run through real quick, then we have to come back and undo something. Some major problem. Some major faux pas that happened. Some problem with funding, some problem with authority. Some violation of federal law. And then we scramble to come back and get it fixed. And operate illegally in the interim.

I would ask that you oppose this motion to suspend the rules and let's do this the right way. [speaker changes]: The House be recessed til 2:30. ?? Speaker, ?? Please state your purpose. [speaker changes]: For an announcement [speaker changes]: Yeah we're in recess gentleman and any other members may make statements. [speaker changes]: The Republicans will have a caucus immediately in room 1228 [speaker changes]: The House will come to order. The motion is before us, members take your seats. [speaker changes]: ?? Discussion ?? Debate. Representative ?? please state your purpose. [speaker changes]: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, we had a good discussion before, I think I made my case as to why we should not suspend the rules. Why it's important to look at this legislation carefully, overnight it seems. And I would urge you without going into detail again, just to be brief, I would urge you to vote against the motion to suspend the rules. Vote no on the motion. Thank you very much. [speaker changes]: Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [speaker changes]: Speak a second time on the motion [speaker changes]: The gentlemans recognized to debate the motion a second time. [speaker changes]: Thank your Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentleman of the House again, I hope you would keep in mind the, precedent we're setting here today and the effect it will have on people who will look to us to set this example. So I hope you'll vote against the motion and let us use our regular procedure. [speaker changes]: Further Discussion. Further Debate. If not the question before the House is the motion made by Representative Moore to suspend the rules for consideration on third reading the House committee substitute to House bill 133. This is a 2/3 vote. All in favor, vote, Aye. All oppose vote, No. ?? the vote. The ?? machine record the vote. 69 have ?? voted in the affirmative and 26 in the negative. The motion passes. House ?? Substitute House ?? 133, the clerk will read. [speaker changes]: General assembly of North Carolina next. [speaker changes]: Further discussion further debate. Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [speaker changes]: Speak on appeal. [speaker changes]: The gentleman recognized to debate the bill [speaker changes]: Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentleman of the House and those who might be listening, the procedure by which we, came to this deal has already been discussed. And everyday we have an opportunity, to do the right thing, usually several times a day. Sometimes we dont like doing whats right, folks say character is what you do, when no one is watching. Well, it might even be what you do when everyone is watching. Ive heard a lot of people say well, you know you could have burnt your fingers on the staples 10 years ago when the technical corrections ??. Admittedly that has not been the case for the last 6 years but 10 years ago, if you had been here you might have burned your hands on the staple or the paper might have been warm. Well, the question will be are you better than your opponent? Are you better than your contemporaries? The question is going to be are you better than yourself? Have you learned? Can you do better? [speaker changes]: Mr. Speaker [speaker changes]: And so, as usual [speaker changes]: Representative Stevens please state your purpose [speaker changes]: Point of order on here ?? process for speaking on the bill itself [speaker changes]: The chair would, the chair will provide the gentleman some latitude in light of the prior vote, but limited latitude. The chair would encourage the gentleman to focus on the content of the bill [speaker changes]: And so the content of the bill is content that we are not familiar with, and the content of the bill is content that should not be in a technical corrections bill much of it admittedly so by the rules chair himself. So I would ask that you hold to our rules, we voted on them at the start of session. We created that expectation, on the rules and so the content of this bill is really inappropriate. But the biggest thing is that you havent had a chance to now examine what else youve seen when you read the bill. You looked in it. You saw that you had substance ?? issues in there trying to figure out how they affect us. [speaker changes]:

I hope that you will take that in consideration and vote against this bill. Let us take those parts out that need to go through the proper committees. If they can wait til next year let us do that. But I hope that you won't feel compelled to vote for this bill just because, just because you can, just because it would be convenient, just because. So vote against 1133. [Speaker Change] Representative Tim Moore please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Briefly debate the bill [Speaker Change] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the bill [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker, members. I remember when I was in the minority and there were times when we would have some huge fights over bills, there are times on this floor today that some of us agree or disagree and have huge arguments. But I have truly in 6 terms never seen so much fuss over nothing as I have today. This is a bill that has primarily technical corrections, it has some sustenance provisions. The ones that folks didn't like amendments were passed, pulled em out. Some amendments passed, the majority kept them in. This has been an open transparent process, this bill is designed to be efficient to deal with issues that on their own probably don't warrant a single bill. But all being put in one bill the bill was examined in the committee, it was shared with the committee, it went out on the internet before the committee members have had roughly 3 days at this point to look at the bill. Yes there's been some changes with amendments, but those have been relatively minor. I just really have never seen such a fuss over something so small. We have complied with the procedure. The only, and the bill is now properly before us for third reading. The bill passed on second reading presumably it will pass on the third reading. Members this is a good bill. We try to take provisions from both sides of the aisle. There is language in this bill that was recommended by members of the Democratic Party. There are provisions in this bill recommended by members of the Republican Party. It's not a partisan bill, it's not anything. It is a bill to deal with other issues that need to be heard. If I may be recognized for a motion. [Speaker Change] The gentleman may state his motion. [Speaker Change] Move the previous question. [Speaker Change] Motion having been made. And duly seconded. The question before the House is to put the main question. 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. 66 having voted in the affirmative, 30 in the negative. The motion passes. Ladies and gentlemen this is on the main question therefore the minority is allocated a period not to exceed 3 minutes for a final debate. [Speaker Change] The gentleman has the floor. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I appreciate once again the rules chairs summary of the bill that there's some things in there from democrats, and a lot from the republicans and of course with the super majority you would expect that whatever you decide you want to do, you can do in this bill. We heard lots of people describe the fact that several items in this bill were items that were in legislation that we passed or addressed. And so the question has to come back such as the issue of license plates in this bill that was in another bill regarding license plates for charter school vehicles. We have legislation now that is conflicting that we passed and obviously the changes made to this bill have been superseded by action on another bill while this bill was being discussed and processed. And so it's not really as simple as it might seem to say it's bipartisan because there is some information in the bill from democrats. And again the question is not as we reached back again what happened 6 or 8 years ago. It's not even what happened yesterday. The question is what did we learn? How can we improve what we do today, and how we do it? This is the record we're setting for subsequent general assemblies. I would hope that as you reflect on how this bill was processed, I would hope that you would say at least that process could have been improved and made fairer and more effective. And I would hope that as that opportunity comes

again, next time we will do better. I understand people are locked in today, and they're gonna vote irrespective of what happens. I guess the idea of Saturday session is no longer on the table, and even though the Senate's not coming back until Monday, this is to demonstrate something that is apparent to all of us already, which is you have a supermajority. You can pass anything you want. Again, do you it just 'cause you can, do you care about the institution, do you understand the precedent you're setting? And, do you want someone else to be standing here saying six years ago they rammed the technical corrections bill down our throat so we should ram it down your throat now, six years from today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes recognized for a period not to exceed three minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the bill that we have in front of us today is one that has been debated thoroughly. Whether you take it as a whole, or individually, the separate parts, I think that what you'll find is a good piece of legislation. I think that what we have is a mechanism to move forward some provisions and ideas that need to be enacted into law. I don't think that--I can vote for this bill, and I can feel good about it. You can vote for it and feel good about it as well because there's nothing in here that's going to cause you any trouble when you go home. I think if the people in your district were sitting here and had the opportunity to vote yes or no on the provisions of this bill, they would agree that, yes, it deserves a yes vote. So, thank you for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1133 on its third reading. All in favor, vote aye; all opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Sixty-one having voted in the affirmative and 35 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1133 has passed its third reading; will be sent to the Senate engrossed as a result of the amendments prior to being sent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be recognized for a question of privilege under Rule 8. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I don't ever really rise--and you all know me by now--to question a lot of things. But, I do listen to the prayers when they're said or read, and read one this morning, and have the fortunate privilege of it being on my desk and I've re-read it a couple of times today as we've moved forward. And, one of the lines in the prayer was in all our deeds and words, guide our thoughts and feelings. So I've--that's resonated with me--all day--as we've gone through these proceedings. And what I'm rising to speak about today is the integrity of our proceedings. Never have I in my twelve years seen what happened today; and, maybe there was a good reason, but we were never told as a body that according to our rules, Rule 20, Section D, no one shall vote from their station, their desk, no one shall push the button for them. That's a rule. And yet, we have members that were recorded as voting aye, and they were not at their desk. That happened on a couple of occasions. Now our presiding Speaker at that point did announce that some of the members on the side of the room would be recorded as voting aye. They didn't stand up and ask for that--they didn't ask previous permission. To my knowledge, or to collectively us as a body, that's wrong, according to our rules. I was a victim of our rules, and I accepted that. I was not able to change a vote before it affected the outcome. I respect the rules. I raised my six children and am influencing my 11 grandchildren; if you have rules, you follow them. Now if there's a reason to break them, then bring them before the people [end of data]

that imposed those rules and let them weigh in. But the rules were broken and I don't know why. But I was called upon here at my desk just within my conscience to bring that question of the integrity of our proceedings from this floor today. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, in regards to the question of privilege just stated on the floor isn't it true that the Speaker actually conferred with the House Minority Leader prior to the votes being done that way in order to avoid a delay or a recess at that point? That is correct. The choice that we had was being able to continue the discussion with the Appropriations Chairs or to halt the session for two hours. If Representative Hall, and he's turned on his light, if they'd raised an objection we would have tried to suspend the rules for that purpose but the goal was to try to let the session continue as we were providing staff with direction that was necessary. We have several members who have perfect attendance and the entire time that they've been in the Legislature and I'm talking years and we wanted to honor their request to be able to record the votes and also to honor the rest of the body by not delaying the proceeding for what we estimated to be two hours. Representative Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the question of privilege or [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the gentleman could be, or if the gentleman would like to state a question regarding the prior inquiry that was the purpose, or he was recognized for a parliamentary inquiry. Does the gentleman wish to be recognized? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just want to make sure the record is clear, Mr. Speaker. It's my understanding and my recollection that after Representative Moore had taken that procedure you came and explained to me why you all were caucusing and that there would be but I was not notified in advance of it happening and did not accept or acknowledge or agree that it would happen. But you did let me know that the reason that you were meeting in the Chamber was to avoid having a two hour delay and that is why Representative Moore did that. So I did not agree in advance but was notified by you after the occurrence happened. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the gentleman does understand, the Chair acknowledged at that time it was well within your rights and within the rules to raise an objection. Noted. Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak again on my order of privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Well members, this is exactly what I guess I was referring to. The rules are collectively voted on by all of us. I wasn't privileged to that conversation. I was here, heard it said from the dais, that those members would be recorded as voting yes. I proceeded to look up the rules. I knew nothing about any conversation with anyone. So if we are going to have rules around voting for individuals in here we're going to collectively vote on it, then I suggest that next year we look really hard at those rules and that we have a bipartisan committee put together to look at our rules going forward. I dare say half to maybe over half in here did not know that members were voting not being at their desk. I do know Mr. Speaker that other speakers have presided and made the comment I'm holding the vote for members to get back in here because they do want to keep their 100% voting record. Well, you know, that's okay, that's good, that's not in our rules but some of us have not had that privilege of having the rules suspended nor even able to have that privilege to vote to have the rules suspended to protect their vote. Whether it was 100% or whether it was a wrong vote or whatever. I'm just saying these rules are collective rules and going forward I think they need to be spelled out more specifically. But I did not know that there was anything said that people could be away from their desk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, on two points from the Chair related to all, I'll infer from that was another discussion could have been phrased in a parliamentary inquiry. There have been a number of instances when members

from the ?? caucus have gone to their desk, and I have asked them would they like to be recorded. That is effectively what occurred over here. So I don't think that the actual violation of the rule as you have stipulated has been limited as a courtesy to other members, more as a practical matter. The Chair would also remind the lady that a point of parliamentary inquiry is within the rules and after the lady had read the rules and not found that latitude, she could have raised that rules, raised that objection; we could have had a vote, which is available to any of the members. Representative Jackson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to make sure everybody knows what Representative Carney is talking about because we played a little fast and loose with the facts today. For instance, the technical correction bill has not been out for three days; it was emailed to members of the Rules committee yesterday at 9:15, so it's been out about 30 hours. The first time that people were allowed to vote not from their desks, the Speaker called it out and said Members so-and-so, so-and-so, and so-and-so will be recognized as voted Aye. The next at least five votes that I saw this happen, the Speaker didn't even call it out. I assume the Clerk looked and saw how those members voted, but they didn't even do what the Senate does and says Senator so-and-so votes Yes. And so I have no idea how Representative Burr or Representative Dollar voted. I know they were recorded as voted green, but there's no way to know that because the Speaker didn't call it out. And so I take Representative Carney's point to heart. It's well-received. Rule 20E is very clear; it says the Speaker shall enforce this rule without exception. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And again, the gentleman well-mentioned...the Chair will mention to the gentleman that it was well within his rights to object to any practice he viewed was a violation of the rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sitting here, I noticed many of those talking in caucus did this when they asked for the vote. Some did go back to their desk and vote, and I'm sorry that it wasn't seen by everyone, and I'm sorry this has come up. But we want to have integrity and we do have integrity, but we're not all perfect. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tim Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to a point of privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to make sure that the body understands that the manner in which these votes were recorded since I was in the chair at the time. The way it was, when we were there, we were looking over to the members, I was and the Clerk, and the members were indicating how they were voting. And as they were voting I was telling him, Representative Burr, Yes, Representative Burr, No. I wasn't doing it into the mic, but it was being done. But at the end of the day, the members were all here. I think the members who were recorded were Representative Burr who's seated right here, Representative Holloway, Representative Dollar, Representative ?? a few cents left, and maybe Representative Hurley, I can't recall, and Representative Johnson. And all those members are here on the floor, and I believe they were all recorded correctly. If any of them were not recorded correctly on their vote, I hope they would stand up and speak. But I believe they were all recorded correctly on their vote. So if we want to wait for the exercise for them to walk back over from there to keep cross back and forth or to recess the House for that purpose, I don't...again... I don't... maybe these kinds of debates indicate that we've been in session too long. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the Chair acknowledges the point that Representative Carney made about reviewing the rules. The Chair would point out a substantial difference in the rules in 2011. There's been some discussion about the rules of 2009 and 2007 that the gentleman understands the lady voted for back in her consideration as well. Notices and announcements. Representative Mobley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This will probably be close to the last time that I'll have an opportunity to speak to this body because I will not be returning for the next session. This is almost eight years of serving, and I did come in with Speaker Tillis. And this has been an experience. A good experience, somethings good and some not so good. But I tell you that I've told my constituents, my family, and all ...[AUDIO ENDS]

All what a wonderful time it has been for me in serving here. The experiences that the almighty has allowed me to experience in my almost 8 years of serving. But I tell you there's been some heartbreaking things that have happened as well. I certainly hope that as you open up your 2015 session, that each of you, and I'm not admonishing anybody, I just want you to know how I feel. I hope you will search your minds, your hearts, to do, and make sure you do the right thing. I tell a lot of people that when I came to this legislature it was because the almighty tapped me to replace the person who I replaced. And I have enjoyed serving here, most of the time has been good, most of the time. I've served under the democratic leadership, if you wanna call it that. I've served under the republican leadership if you wanna call it that. But I know there have been times when I have said I wished we did not know what party anybody was a part of. That you vote your conviction for your constituents. I heard someone say yesterday as I was walking into the chamber, it's hard to vote against or to speak out and vote against your leadership. Well I can imagine it is, sometimes you need to keep your thoughts to yourself, and vote your conviction, and vote however it is that you know that your constituents would have you to vote. I hope that you will serve as long as you feel and as the almighty feels that you can do good for the people for which you are to serve for, or the people who put you in to serve. My advice if I had to give advice to anybody would be do the right thing, and you don't have to worry about coming back to correct something that you didn't such a good job on. I love each and every one of you because my bible tells me that if you wanna get into heaven you gotta love everybody. I don't like a lot of you, but I love everybody. Sometimes I don't even like my seatmate. But basically that's the thing that we need to keep in our hearts, and our minds is doing the thing that we were sent here to do by our constituents. I don't know if, and I haven't done any research, but I just wonder how many of you in here have constituents who also serving with you in this house. That would be an interesting gesture. But I didn't think there ?? many of you. So why is it we need to rely on what our constituents are saying before we cast a vote? [Speaker Change] Representative Mobley without objection we're gonna let you to continue past your time allocation. [Speaker Change] Thank you. So I guess the main thing that I wanna leave with you, keeping your hearts and minds clear as you do the people’s business. Do what is right for the people who placed you here, who voted you to come in. I will come back and visit every now and then. I don't know when I will but you might look up in the back of the room, or up in the gallery and I'll be sitting up there sometimes.

But I have you to know that it's interesting to me how God has removed so many of us from this, from this place, not because of a vote or because He touched and said I'm ready for you to come in. I think back and think about the persons who I replaced and who some of you replaced. A lot of us have traded this way, and a lot of us have not come back. Even in the course of a year, you think back and you recognize the number of people who used to be here. It's a good place to serve, it's a great place to serve, and continue doing the right thing for the people of this great state and your community. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. {SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an hour long speech. Just kidding. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is out of order, but will be recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, no sir, for an announcement, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The committee for Environmental Regulatory Reform will meet 15 minutes after Session in Room 1425, and we're going to be looking at one Bill, and we won't be there very long. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday was a pretty busy day around the General Assembly, and we adjourned before I could return back to my desk from working on budget issues to stand and let you all know that I am trying to catch up with my seatmate in age, and we did for a little bit, but he turned another year older yesterday and had a birthday, and had the pleasure of spending the evening. until about 11:30 last night, with myself and Representative Lambeth and Representative Avila and Brisson, working on the budget, so he had a great birthday, I'm sure, spending it with us all night long, and I hope you'll join me in wishing him a happy belated birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, since it looks like we're not going to be here tomorrow, I did want to bring the Members' attention to a significant anniversary of an important event in America's social and military history. On July 26, 1948, President Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981, and the effect of that Order was to desegregate our nation's armed services. Now, he wasn't a magician, he didn't wave a magic wand and end all sorts of discrimination in the military immediately, but it was the first big step directing that the armed services do take all actions necessary to eliminate that, and I think it's just important to say that when we reduce barriers it makes our nation great, and I can speak from experience that, without a doubt, one of the main reasons we've got the greatest military in the world was this step that our nation took many, many years ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Members, in light of the announcement that I made yesterday, that 15 minutes after Session today the House Committee on Agriculture would meet; the Committee on Agriculture will not meet today, and, Mr. Speaker, if there are any of the members that are sufficiently disappointed at that, Representative Langdon and I will remain here at our desk for a few minutes so that you can come and chastise us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't think the gentlemen will have to wait long. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I was going to wait until next Wednesday to do this, but we may or may not be here, so I guess I'll have to do it today. My seatmate is a...

very kind gentleman, who I have to fuss at him a little bit, though, because he does have a tendency to be kind and share food with me and that's help put the 20 lbs. on me that I put on last year I've got to work to get off. But he meant it kindly and I've enjoyed sharing with him. He is a good gentleman who is just that, a gentleman. Even when we disagree pretty strongly on some things we vote on around here. He treats me very kindly and I do appreciate it. On Wednesday he is going to be 106 years old. No, excuse me. That's right. I lost track after we got in that debate earlier. It took so long. He'll be 66 on Wednesday. Just want to wish him a very Happy Birthday and just all the wonderful things that the good Lord can bring along with it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tim Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion if there are no further notices or announcements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair sees no members wishing to rise. The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that subject to the ratification bills, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, introductions of bills and resolutions, and modifications to the calendar that the House do now adjourn, to reconvene on Monday, July 28th, 2014 at 4pm, and as a footnote to that I believe that will be for a skeleton session only on that day. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct for Monday. Continue to check your email. Whether or not we can give more that 24 hours notice the chair cannot commit. But there will be no votes on Monday. Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Lewis, that the House do now adjourns subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, conference reports, re-referral bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, and adjustments to the calendar to reconvene on Monday, July 28th at 4pm. All in favor say aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The House stated has adjourned.