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 | March 19, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members, please take your seats. Visitors please retire from the chamber. The sergeant at arms will close the doors. Members and visitors in the gallery, please silence all cellular phones and personal electronic devices. The prayer will be offered by Representative Leo Daughtry. Members and visitors in the gallery, please stand and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lord be with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And also with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let us pray. Oh Lord, we often ask the question, are you a Baptist, Methodist, Buddhist or Catholic? Are you a Seven Day Adventist, a Sheik, a Hindu or a Quaker? Whatever religion we may be, we trust that you have no preconditions, established borders, rigid denominations, oaths or restrictions. Your love is not based on our membership in any church or synagogue. You love us all. Likewise, we know that the resurrection as explained in the gospels happened, and that the resurrection happens in our hearts every day, and every minute, and that is the real meaning of Easter. Even when we think we are too smart or too powerful to need your love, you continue to speak to us as you make us, and then you walk with us silently out of the night. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the journal for March 18, 2013 has been examined and found to be correct. I move its approval as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the journal for Monday March 18, 2013 be approved as written. All those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials or papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House. Ratification of bills and resolutions, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Enrolling clerk reports the following bill to be ratified, properly enrolled and presented to the office of the Secretary of State. House Bill 33, an act to repeal the law prohibiting the setting of steel traps on certain rented or leased land in Cleveland, Polk and Rutherford Counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bills be noted. [PAUSE] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to a group of students, teachers and parent chaperones from John Griffin Middle School from Fayetteville. Please stand and let us welcome you. [APPLAUSE] Representative Murray is recognized to send forth a Committee Report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray, chair for the Committee on Commerce and Job Development, assignment of bills to subcommittee. The following bills were signed. House Bill 92, allow row usage of central business districts. Assigned to Subcommittee on Energy and Emerging Markets. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, the chair would like to extend the courtesies of the floor and a thank you to the nurse of the day. The nurse of the day is Alicia Frey. Is it Free or Fry? From Durham. Welcome and thank you for your service today. [APPLAUSE] Senate Bills and resolutions. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, House Bill 324, School calendar flexibility, Rohan-Salisbury. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Commerce and Job Development, if favorable, Education. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElrath, House Bill 325, Park fees for active duty military veterans. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Homeland Security Military Veterans Affairs if favorable, Finance if favorable Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager, House bill 326, Rutherford County condemnation consent. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Elmore, Hager and Turner, House Bill 327, fire and rescue pension revisions of 2013. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State Personnel if favorable Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fischer, House Bill 328, revised auditors responsibilities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules Calendar, operations of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stam, Collins, S. Ross and Wells, House Bill 329, 2013 budget act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bryan and Stam, House Bill 330

to land in the act and the divides us a subcommittee at the same products, house bill 331 timer citations in one of the procedure uses of DNA resident fonts and one of the parties and Riley reacts and the satisfaction of security measures in a series of Vienna Systems and partly the 70% of safety by healthy, knocked off line is the time of slumping 102 public product partnership at times ?? ?? ?? ?? raised a Housing Data is apparently causing and shares attitudes under a season finale in on the holders of the housing department was volunteers is after two days of Bosworth Carolina is the first American red cross was leading 1/2 member styled edition of-represents doesn't have to have one county chairs attitudes and the currencies of the gallery's the organizers were affiliated with the contact your upcoming county ?? they are all share more of shares using dolls and executive director of the torrent Wally place and was well below time ?? ?? to me that if that's had ?? that's half of that mattered in 1980 years makes using a number of jobs and the owners ?? personalization purpose released because restaurants and riled the jury has 20 days, retailers are all you know that the attacks and solar the smaller ones who only ?? as the other night, the connectivity defense official he did not include the doubt that this country after mention all the facts of the page will be at the Johnson of over one and acts ?? person from a station purpose ?? drive them as laser has made no more than his name. As of now series was sprayed I'm expressing gratitude and this is a loss at the base and is now a days inn, routed Cal the time-and MSN said in an environment that is now in fairly and Annie L3 people times and less than 40 years is our enemy, and 17 years waiting, he had not yet begun, Thailand 1717 years against them for years and, while safety and in 10 years and would not be added to the west into an activist senior which was a time this fall, SS independence that business day, that would call an incident that anyone had any time has been out of the event happens to me that he had waited city, he acts out of a time until the 1980s and into the heart and soul, that the entertainer of that, Stalin and I'll ?? ……………

To being enforced, adjudicated, and having the penalties applied to those convicted of the new offense. However given there is no historical data on this new offense, or similar offenses to use as a proxy for predicting the total number of new offenses. The physical research division cannot reasonably estimate the total additional costs that may be incurred. The following costs may be incurred for every one person charged and convicted of this crime. The administration office of the ?? $626 per disposition, and ?? defense services no charge in per case, no change in per case cost. Prison section, no cost excess bed space projected for at least five years, and community correction, minimum of $980 per conviction. And I would appreciate your support on this bill, and there are two other people who helped with this bill if they would like to speak. I'd appreciate it. [Speaker Change] Representative Baskerville please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker this is a good bill. I wanna thank Representative Hurley for putting the time together to try to address an issue. Right now if individuals have three prior DWI convictions that occur within 10 years and they catch another DWI that person can be charged with a felony for being a habitual impaired driver. Now sometimes folks might have 3, 4, 5 convictions and have been convicted as a habitual DWI, but those convictions occur more than 10 years in the past. And so they therefore will not be able to be charged again with habitual DWI unless they commit 3 within a 10 year period. So this eliminates that loophole like Representative Hurley Says. And the way that I look at it if someone has 3 DWI convictions and they are convicted as a Habitual DWI and then later on in the future they get another DWI, that person has a serious driving, I mean a serious drinking problem. And then putting all drivers at risk that are on the road. I talked about this bill with some of my colleagues from my time in the district attorney office, and they appreciate this tool in their box to use. It's not a mandatory thing the district attorney still will have to indict this individual with a felony charge. And even though I'm probably gonna take some blow back from the defense bar on this, I think this is a good bill, and ask that you support it. [Speaker Change] Representative McNeill please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman’s recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] I can't really add much more then what the Representative Baskerville, and Representative Hurley had added to it. It is a good bill, just like Representative Baskerville said, if a person has done 10 years in prison and they get out and they have another DWI, they definitely do have a habitual driving problem. This is a very, very good bill. This is probably not anyone in this room who hasn't been touched by a family member, or a friend who has been in an accident involving someone that was driving drunk. It is something that we should have a zero tolerance for in this state. No one has the right to get drunk and drive down the road and put your family, or my family in jeopardy. Thank you and I commend the bill to you. [Speaker Change] Ladies and gentleman without objection rule 12-D is suspended. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Dwayne-Hall please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] Gentleman’s recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Representative Baskerville mentioned whom I respect a great deal that you still have to indict, but we all know how easy it is to indict someone. And the line about you can indict a ham sandwich if you need to. I've worked in the courtroom quite a bit with DUI cases, DWI. And I do feel this bill is a bit harsh. The bill that we have right now I was told was actually crafted for a reason, the 10 year period. And it was crafted by people on both sides of the aisle, to give an option for people to get back their license and have a livelihood after a great deal of time has passed. A decade can be argued not reasonable, possibly irr-easonable. We can debate whether that is but, the way the bills written now, 40 years could pass. It could be a 20 year old that's not just an alcoholic, DWI is also prescription drugs it could be any type of impairment. It could be a very young person that made a mistake and then

has a family that's done everything right for 30, 40 years and still won't have the ability to get a license and support their family. So for all these reasons I think this bill is a bit harsh and I urge you to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask, i guess Rep. Baskerville a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Baskerville, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let me understand this. You get convicted three times for driving while impaired under the current law, you are then classified as a habitual offender. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How does he get convicted as a habitual offender? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are convicted of 3 DWIs within 10 years of catching a fourth DWI. If you are convicted of the fourth DWI, you can be punished as a habitual DWI driver, which is a felony. So you've got to get three priors within a 10 year period and then get convicted of a fourth before you attain this habitual DWI status. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, you're correct. I knew that. But, once you have attained that DWI habitual offender status after having been caught the fourth time within a 10 year period, any other offense after that you are still considered a habitual offender. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill gives the district attorney the option of indicting that individual as a habitual DWI. Yes, any DWIs after that point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It gives me- It gives them the option rather than- are you saying it's not mandatory? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, it gives the district attorneys the option. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, it sounds like it's a fair bill but it really in effect it could not be unfair. For instance, you're in school, you're in college, and everybody knows how college people act. You get a couple DWIs while you're in school or something like that. Then you come out, you live your life and you go out on your wedding anniversary within that period of time and you take a little drink of wine or something, and you get picked up and get convicted of DWI. That's your third one. 7 or 8 years later, you come back within that 10 year period, and you get picked up the fourth time. Then you got a problem. But then, even though you've been then declared an habitual offender at that point, you gotta- and you serve whatever time is given you, but then you come out and begin to live an exemplary life and somewhere down the line, you pick up another charge maybe 20 years down the line, and you pick up another charge, and you got a real vindictive DA just sitting there waiting for you to do something wrong. Or it doesn't have to be, it could be just the rule of law in that particular case. You could be convicted again and sent away for a long time after having been straight for any number of years after that. This bill, I think, really needs a little bit more work on it if you're gonna do this to folks. I'm not one who believes that drunk drivers ought to be on the road, but if there is a real good reason for them who, those who have tried to make restitution, those who have tried, have served their time, those have tried to just do the right thing, then why maybe 30 years down the road, when they get picked up again should they have to go through this? I think this bill needs a little more work on it, and plus the fact- one other thing, I'm looking at the incarceration note on this. Somewhere along the line is 168 bids involved in this situation. Since this has not been something that we have had in the past, then it's something that we just need to really take a look at because we really don't know what the outcome is gonna be and how that incarceration is gonna affect our prison system. I suggest you think long and hard before voting on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, this is a

[Speaker changes.]....the bill. Drunk driving is a serious problem in this state. Now in the last session, we revisited the issue of habitual drunk driving and we made some changes and this is a loophole that was created inadvertantly. We're trying to tighten the law up. The newspaper just had the article this weekend about the couple that was killed by the fella' who was driving drunk, down the wrong way on Wade Avenue. He had been charged with three DWI's but convicted only once. It's difficult in this state to get a conviction of somebody who's driving drunk because of all the opportunities that a person has to have the case thrown out of court. If you've been charged with three DWI's, you've driven drunk a whole lotta' times, you just happened to get caught three times and be convicted. Three DWI's is almost unheard of. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker? [Speaker changes.] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Would Representative Starnes answer a question? [Speaker changes.] I yield. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman yields. [Speaker changes.] Representative Starnes, you sayin' you get caught three times but it's get thrown outta' court, where's the guilt or anything in there that that individual has been drivin' drunk three times without ever havin' been convicted of it? [Speaker changes.] Representative Michaux, you're a clever attorney and you know how to get your defendants off. [Speaker changes.] Another question, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] I yield. [Speaker changes.] Gentleman yields. [Speaker changes.] Also a citizen can believe in the constitution...that until you're convicted of a crime, you're innocent. [Speaker changes.] Does the gentleman have a question? The gentleman was recognized the second time to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] I'm sorry. [Speaker changes.] Representative Starnes has the floor, thank you. [Speaker changes.] Ladies and gentlemen, you know good and well how hard it is for these judges to hand down tough sentences on drunk drivers. We do our best to pass laws in this body, that will address the issue of driving drunk but it's hard to get the convictions. We need to go in the direction to make it tougher on drunk drivers...really what we need are some judges that will enforce the laws. But anyway, this is a good step in the right direction and I hope you'll vote for the bill. [Speaker changes.] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To debate the bill, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. I'm trying ...in listening to the debate, because I had some differing views coming in to the floor and expressed 'em in our caucus, that I had some concern but I really do think the debate has actually eliminated some of my concern that I had, like Representative Michaux...and here's why: I think in Line 11, where it has "has been previously convicted of the offense of habitual impaired driving", if I'm not mistaken, and Representative Hurley or Representative Baskerville might be able to speak to it but I think I'm right. That's a fairly new offense and so there aren't gonna be that many people that Clause ii is gonna' pick up, that Clause i hasn't picked up. Because it's a pretty new offense. And what my concern was is how we dealt with all the people who had those DWI's twenty years ago and then make a mistake now and that's not gonna' be caught...that's not...they're not gonna get caught in the vice of ii right now. This is more a prospective bill in many respects and for that reason, I've changed my mind based on the floor debate and I'm going to be voting for the bill. Thank you. [Speaker changes.] Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To speak on the bill. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] When you're driving two tons of steel down the road and you don't have your full faculties, you don't deserve four chances. I think this is a very lenient bill. In some countries, your first offense, you go in front of the firing squad so I think it's a very lean bill...lenient bill and I think that we need to vote for it. [Speaker changes.] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. (Gavel.) [Speaker changes.] To debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [Speaker changes.] Well, it's hard to follow that...laughs...and I concur. I just wanted to let the body know that we...I don't know...I'm sorry I had to speak with some superintendents, that's why I was late...but the...I will say that working with Representative Hurley was probably the best process of this whole thing, she taught me so much and she's such a stateswoman. And I was really glad...it was really good for me to meet Representative Hurley at eleven o' clock at night in our new station and, when they brought this to our attention, and we were able to come together and work on the bill, I said..she said "who you wanna' lead?" and I said "you gotta lead because I don't know what I'm doin' yet!" And so, she had... she lead it and I was really pleased to do it and this is a great bill...all this does is.... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

propose to the jury I mean the judge to go back and look at a record we should be looking at. I mean we should know if you had 5 or 6 or 7 or 8 DWI's, we should definitely know and account for the fact that you killed a whole entire family and so the way the current law works right now, this gentleman in Winston-Salem, he killed a family and they are dead. Name me one law in the world where you can kill a family and nobody goes back and looks and sees that you killed a whole entire family and this is the loophole that we have, that judge, after he came out of jail, after 10, I think it was 13 years, he came out of jail and the law that we have currently now, he got 2 more DWI's and they were all misdemeanors because they could not go back and look at his record. I can see the look on everybody's faces, it is absurd and I hope you guys can support the bill, Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Baskerville, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. Just to allay some concerns expressed by Representatives Glazier and Michaux and the remarks by Representative Starnes, I couldn't agree with Starnes more that these DWI cases often times are difficult to prove, it is a very high standard, a lot of rules of evidence regarding what can come in and be accepted as evidence and what can not and for that very reason, seeing how hard it is, if someone has convicted, not just charged or had the case dismissed or they were found not guilty but were convicted three times and then they catch a fourth DWI, I think they have had several bites at the apple. It is convictions, given how hard it is to convict, 3 prior convictions, additionally to Representative Glazier he is actually correct, this habitual DWI is a relatively new charge so the handful of folks like in this particular situation like Rep Hurley was discussing, they would fall under this new provision that if someone was previously convicted of habitual DWI you can be also charged and convicted with habitual DWI now it catches a handful of folks like this particular circumstance she is talking about and the fiscal note attached says we have more than enough beds in the DOC to accommodate this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Just wanted to come to the defense of our district attorneys and our judges. It seems like their reputations got a little besmirched by comments that the defense attorneys are smarter than our judges and maybe smarter than our DA's and it is not often you are going to hear me stand up and come to the defense of the DA's having been in the defense bar myself but I think we do understand that our judges are as alerted and skilled as the attorneys who are on the defense bar and that our district attorneys do have the resources and the power of the state behind them when they get ready to seek a conviction so I don't think we should take this bill lightly and presume that there is somehow some unfair advantage first of all. Second of all it may be unfortunate in the order the bill appears on the calendar or order they were filed as we see we have another bill on the calendar that will affect the impact of this bill as we vote on it. I do think it is important that we understand how serious this is as we go forward and I realize that ignorance of the law is no excuse but at the same time we understand that driving while impaired, this is not driving while drunk, this is driving while impaired, so anyone who may have a violation as a result of prescription drug or some other thing involved they too would be subject to this; no matter how late in life, this is a lifelong bill. This is a bill that will count your convictions whether it is for a substance that is a prescription or not; if it is an over the counter substance that you might have taken for a cold or whatever or whether it is alcohol, it is driving while impaired, not driving while drunk, meaning drinking alcohol, so I do want to make sure as we vote and consider this, we consider those facts and not get off on some other idea. I think the other question is, are the standards that we use in convictions the same, are the people the same who are in the courtroom representing the defendants and do we go through the same amount of care. I heard Representative Michaux talk about the constitution and he believes in it and I believe we should have that opportunity for everyone

…who is charged, if they’re charged three times we don’t know the reason for the charges, whether there’s some bias involved, whether there’s a vendetta, or whether the person has a drinking problem. But certainly that’s what we rely on the court for. I think in light of the subsequent bill on the calendar that’s going to come into play, I would ask that you look very cautiously at this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on this bill, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m going to read the difference in my bill that’s on the floor and the one that will come later. My bill does address this tenure situation, and it gives the judges the right to look back. Right now they’re not looking back, and that’s why he got a misdemeanor after he had killed this family. Representative Jackson’s bill reduces the number of prior DWI offenses required to become a habitual DWI from three to two, so that the third DWI within a 10 year period would be a habitual DWI, instead of the fourth. And this bill does not address the concern about the guy who was imprisoned for 10 years, and we need to make sure that he’s just not a misdemeanor out there, he should be a habitual felon. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Duane Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to clarify one thing about looking back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve been in the sentencing phase quite a few times, and the judge now has the ability to look back on these sentences. A judge now can look back not just at convictions, but charges and any part of the person’s record in the sentencing phase. It was also mentioned that his gives the prosecutor and option, but again I’ve represented thousands of clients. I’ve never seen a prosecutor once that didn’t charge everything he could and then some. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Deborah Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Tim Moore a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Moore. And these are friendly questions, but I think that they might help the body and maybe help us weigh all of these things. We have two DWI bills on our calendar today that affect each other. And they both have incarceration notes. And so I would just like to know why they didn’t both go to the same Judiciary Committee so that the policy could be considered together? And why they then didn’t get referred to the Appropriations’ Committee, because together they will take up 250 prison beds a year. And whether or not we have the beds, we still will need to feed those people and give them medical care and do whatever. And I personally have no problem with either of the bills now that we’ve kind of narrowed down the first one. But it just seems like this is a big issue with a lot of hearts that come together, and maybe they should have been considered in committee altogether, and then let our Appropriations’ folks think about the fiscal impact and then brought it back to us as a package. Is there a reason why it’s all kind of hodge podge like this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I don’t know that it’s hodge podge, but I would say this with respect to the bill referral. We do referrals on several things. Number one, generally criminal bills will go to B, Judiciary Subcommittee B. However, if a member of a committee is a, or a bill sponsor is a member of another Judiciary Committee, we will often send it to the Judiciary Committee where they are a member. So that’s why it went to two different J Committees. As far as the Appropriation impact, it’s not a lot of money that’s affected in looking at it. I was actually, when you asked me to yield to the question, I was taking a look at the fiscal… Both bills do appear to have fiscal notes, so they meet that criteria. So I think this is simply a matter where the House decides from a policy standpoint what it wants to do. But the budget impact is very minimal in the big picture. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask a follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, there is a fiscal impact, however, so for both bills. And if you put them both together then we’re going to have even more people. And so I guess my next question is how much of a budget impact does there have to be before we look at it. Not to say that we wouldn’t pass them again. I am not against these bills. I just want to know for the future, you know, how much money do we have to spend before the Appropriations…

keys a lot of things and they consider their collective the time about one rule them all ages 10 of its own events and dollar and sincere that I have some alternatives of novels is one Packard bell NEC had estimated seven in any case the foundation for $10.00 and copy of the talk about this right now in the times and other races from a field of the bills, where it is an interesting-offs of a key was just the crime scene of the major has made no of that he really has to seek are having to sit down and now that the city and thereby not made smaller subset of people that this might impact on, they don't necessarily see the long-term injustice of it will be some prior to this case, and each will, time situation that would say that we'd be happy else did the right time and a wall at the school and acts publication of 250 people I hear he can of businesses and which we get hired and every time something about the scenes in a proper way, he stumbled at what is called impact will be a major recall 100% and three-story apartments and Armani and it is designed ways to have the right to sell me to do about this in a Broadway going forward and at the time since that's intention to it because everybody standing as the court denied his accounting standards opinions person Cunningham PlayStation purpose thinks time center has mail and I have a question of students to the CIA is a done deal is done us ??hood in the U.S. Army and SS men have been split in parent's routing of that using a wendy's of Exeter and varying clustering in any event is no timeouts with tears from people we've been getting thing on solid scenes might be entrees one times, instead of being proactive soul of the next 10 years and spent five years and one of the day of sciences as was at mile treatment in addition, novice at the expense template of some 31 games because I know the 19 states and other than that is a good question , Richard timing of ways, some of the season money is needed immediately comment in the state cars on time it's here that went to jail. He given a suspended sentence which we have made the probation a condition of the times and always be as the substance abuse the system and recommended, what's the matter of fact, that all of these as a model, as many times jackson's sell some of the city given the developers and impede the progress made in the white suit, completed about which in any given day, 7:00 PM, and one to be more likely, time-to-one at that, not all subsidies of Sweden this time in the body, just met down into a cold as you would not discuss any student Matthew fox wanted to 1:00 PM, if any of its time when all is the data and applications to place in the event will pay is a convicted of a vigil here, so the city of Anaheim hills at previously been convicted of me that he had asked and a candidate, updates will be added at a time he sees his office mail has not indicated when the city and he's tried the time-Ins, authors, for instance, Roseanne, the finished the week ended may and OLAP conditions something some content is requires active, I'm fascinated information sciences want to make about ways dominance of the outlines of the gallery relieving the chairman likes a steady currencies on our team of CBS' endorsing contractors and the Carolinas certain days of the more halftime ?? ……………

Speaker: Welcome and thank you for all your work, on behalf of all the citizens of NC. [clapping] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I will be brief. I had not intended to speak on this bill, and then I started thinking a bill about my 16 year old daughter, who got her driver’s license last week. Then I started thinking about families I know, constituents of mine, that are broken hearted today because their young people were killed in car accidents. Then I started thinking about the fact that almost half of the auto fatalities that take place are alcohol related. Friends, I would say that it is an opportunity for us, as I see it, to take a step in the right direction. It troubles me sometimes to hear comments like, well, they are just going to do it; they are expected to do it; all of us were young at one time. I think we need to quit making excuses. I think that it is important that the citizens of this state, including the young people of this state, see that the general assembly believes in personal responsibility. If you are going to operate a motor vehicle, you have a responsibility to not drive it while impaired. It is as simple as that. If you are going to choose to use alcohol, or some other drug, you need to not operate a motor vehicle. I cannot say it better than Representative Starnes and some of the other Representatives, but this is a good bill. I commend it to you. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of house bill 31 on its second reading. 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: 108 having voted in the affirmative, 10 in the negative. House bill 31 has passed its second reading and, without objection, will be read a third time. Clerk: NC general assembly enacts. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of house bill 31 on its third reading. All in favor will vote aye. [aye] All opposed will vote no. [silence] The aye’s have it and house bill 31 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the senate. House bill 32. The clerk will read. Clerk: House bill 32, a bill to be entitled an act to increase the amount of a year’s allowance for a surviving spouse. General assembly of NC enacts. +Speaker: Representative Truner, please state your purpose. Representative: To speak on the bill. Speaker: The lady is recognized to speak on the bill. Representative: House bill 32 increases the allowance of an estate for a spouse from $20,000 to $30,000, many of you know that in my former life, I was a clerk of superior court in Ardell County for 18 years. Many times, when a spouse comes in, they are devastated. This year’s allowance is what they depend on to make the administration of the estate simple. If there is only this amount of personal property then this definitely makes it easier for that spouse to handle those devastating circumstances. This amount, increased to $30,000, would generally take care of a car, maybe a bank account, and they would not have to go through all of the formal administration. This is a good bill and I appreciate Representative Hurlein sponsoring it with me and I hope that you will support it. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of house bill 32 on its second reading. 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: 117 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House bill 32 has passed its second reading and, without objection, will be read a third time. Clerk: NC general assembly enacts. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of house bill 32 on its third reading. All in favor will vote aye. [aye] All opposed will vote no. [silence] The aye’s have it and house bill 32 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the senate. House bill 40. The clerk will read. Clerk: House bill 40, a bill entitled an act to amend the offense of habitual

Impaired Driving. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [CHANGE SPEAKER] Representative Jackson, please state your purpose. [CHANGE SPEAKER] To speak on a bill. [CHANGE SPEAKER] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [CHANGE SPEAKER] Thank you Mister Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, we've heard a little bit about my bill but I'm going to explain it in a little more detail. First I want to commend the sponsors of House Bill 31. I think it was a good bill. I want to explain a little bit what wasn't explained. I wasn't going to stand up and talk about somebody else's bill because of mine. But I just want you to understand when you get a habitual DWI, you lose your license permanently. At least it used to be permanently. And a few years ago, over some objections from some of us that were here, we put a provision where you could get your license reinstated under certain provisions after ten years. So if you got a habitual, you went ten years without another one, then you might could get a license back if you put an intoxilyzer in your car and you had to have that for seven years. And that provision that allows the license coming back expires in 2014 and I hope we will not renew that. I just want to let you know, it's a long way out, this period of coverage and somebody shouldn't be driving basically without the machine. They shouldn't be driving at least seventeen years. They shouldn't be drunk driving at least seventeen years after getting a habitual. And so this was a loophole and I appreciate Representative Hurley and Brandon, Baskerville for addressing that. One of the questions was asked, why didn't we work together? Well, this shows you legislative confidentiality really works. She was having a bill drawn up, I was having a bill drawn up and nobody told us we had each others bill. They got introduced I think the same day, maybe the next day. And that's how we want it to work. I introduced five bills and the reason why they're not all together, I understand that about let's. I can write a bill. I you want to really make a difference in fatalities in North Carolina, I can write that drunk driving bill. But you know what will happen if I put everything that needs to be in that bill? It would get buried in committee because somebody would have a problem with this part and somebody would have a problem with that part and so it would never get passed. And so what I did was I broke my bills up into individual pieces and this is the first one of them. And it addresses a problem which I saw looking, how can we address driving while impaired and specifically, the fatalities. And so I looked at other states and what I saw was North Carolina is somewhere in the middle about how we treat habitual DWI offenders. And I looked for the two states that really jumped out at me that had a lot fewer DWI fatalities. And I said to myself "What do they have in common?" And one thing they had in common was, they've treated the trigger. Well, it moved from a misdemeanor to a felony or into some type of enhanced sentence, much fewer. Some states do it on your second offense, believe it or not within a time period. This bill would move it from fourth in ten years to three in ten years. I don't think that's a drastic change. There will be a fiscal impact, as I had told the members in Judiciary Committee A in committee. I think there's one hundred eighty something beds in the second year. What that tells me is there will be one hundred eighty something people who are drunk driving on our roads that won't be on our roads for at least twelve months and I think that's a good thing. The couple that got killed went to church in my district. They got killed on Sunday. They were on their way home from church. They went to an earlier service than normal so they could go watch the Carolina basketball game at home. And they were killed by somebody at one o'clock in the afternoon who had been charged three times. And one of the issues that he had was that he had had two charges dismissed. And Representative Michaux made a point about issues that go into that and so one of the bills I have would address that because an office didn't show up and so the state had to take a dismissal on that charge and of course, this happened. But some of these things can be prevented. We can't prevent every one of these fatalities but we can make a difference. This bill is just a small step in that direction. The Sheriff's Association did come out in support of the bill and I'd appreciate your support. [CHANGE SPEAKER] Representative Duane Hall, please state your purpose. [CHANGE SPEAKER] Question for the sponsor please. [CHANGE SPEAKER] Does the gentleman yield? [CHANGE SPEAKER] I yield [CHANGE SPEAKER] The gentleman yields [CHANGE SPEAKER] Representative, just one question. Since we just amended this same statute and yours reads ten years, would the changes we made a moment ago affect yours? Would yours now be for lifetime or would the way it's written, ten years, still be in place with yours? [CHANGE SPEAKER] Thank you Representative Hall. No they would not change. Our bills do not impact each other in that they don't change. My bill makes it the third is going to be habitual and once you get a habitual, 31 will make every charge after that habitual. [CHANGE SPEAKER] Thank you [CHANGE SPEAKER] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 40 on it's second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote.

...the Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative and three in the negative; House Bill 40 has passed its second reading; without objection, will 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 House Bill 40 on its third reading. All in favor say aye; all opposed say no. The ayes have it; House Bill 40 is passed its third reading; will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 57, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Bill 57, a bill to be entitled an act, to prohibit local school administrative units from assessing indirect costs to a child nutrition program unless the program is financially solvent; and to recommend by the joint legislative evaluation program evaluation oversight committee based on recommendation of the program evaluation divisions. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the House. As the Reading Clerk stated, this is a provision that came from the program evaluation committee in the--in Session log 2010--and the program evaluation division did study how local education authorities assess direct and indirect costs to their individual nutrition program. And, these charges are allowed by the Federal government, and also by state law, to cover school direct--school districts' overhead--but are levied by the --at the discretion of your local LEA. The General Assembly was reacting to complaints from the school nutrition directors that the administrative costs allowed--[pause]--The General Assembly was reacting to complaints from school nutrition directors that the administrative cost--allocated charges--were causing the programs to have a very serious cash flow problem within the local school systems. And the program evaluation division found that an average school lost money on each school meal, and were generating revenues to cover costs by selling the less than desirable a la carte French fries and doughnuts, and the things that were certainly not very healthy. But, they created a higher cost and helped to subsidize the program. The evaluation found that 52 of the 115 programs statewide operated at a loss. That 67 of the 115 did not have the one month operating balance that the Department of Public Instruction required by policy. However, 30 of the 67 programs that did have the one month's balance--did not have the one month's balance--were charged indirect costs by their local education authorities in spite of the policy that was in place at the Department. So, actually, what this bill will do--because the DPI policy was not working, the Committee voted, and this bill went to Finance and just came out. Program Evaluation recommended that the General Assembly require a minimum of one month operating balance by law before a local education authority can assess indirect costs to their school nutrition programs. With that, Mr. Speaker, I'll stand to answer any questions, and I would ask for your support on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 57 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye; all opposed vote no; the Clerk will open the vote. [end of data...] [SPEAKER CHANGES]

Speaker: The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 118 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The house committee substitute to house bill 57 has passed its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. Clerk: NC general assembly enacts. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to house bill 57 on its third reading. All in favor will vote aye. [aye] All opposed will vote no. [silence] The aye’s have it and house committee substitute to house bill 57 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the senate. House bill 125. The clerk will read. Clerk: House bill 125, a bill entitled an act to clarify certain types computer codes are not public record. NC general assembly enacts. Speaker: Representative Conrad, please state your purpose. Representative: To speak to the bill. Speaker: The lady is recognized to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this bill is to clarify that any proprietary computer code, written either by an agency or subdivision of the state or local government, will not be on public record. We already have a general statute, 132-1, that defines what is part of the public record, such as documents, letters anything that is part of business. All this bill would do is add computer code, the binary program language, to that list in the specific exclusions. There are two reasons for doing this. The first is rather obvious and that is for security reasons and to prevent cyber attacks. The second reason was proposed to me by the county manager of my county, Syke County, was that this computer code could have a marketable value. This computer code, developed by in house IT staff, could be licensed to private businesses and negotiated with contract agreements. The public would benefit from these agreements by any financial considerations that would be included in the contracts. The bill passed unanimously from the judicial committee, and also, since this particular bill is part of the public record, I have not had any objections from the citizens or the press. I would commend this bill for your approval. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house bill 125 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will record the vote: 117 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House bill 125 has passed its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. Clerk : General assembly Speaker: Further discussion or debate? IF not, the question before the house is the passage of the house bill 125 on its third reading. All in favor will vote aye. [aye] All opposed will vote no. [silence] The aye’s have it and house bill 125 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the senate. House bill 150. The clerk will read. Clerk: committee substitute for house bill 150, a bill entitled an act to clarify when a county or municipality may enact zoning ordinances related to its city controls. NC general assembly enacts. Speaker: Representative Dollard, please state your purpose. Representative: TO speak to the bill. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the house, house bill 150 simply clarifies that municipalities in counties do not have the authority to regulate the aesthetics of single family and two family residential homes as it applies to the planning or outside of exterior roofs, the planning of an individual home, porches, nonstructural exterior ornamentations, the window styles and garage doors and types of rooms and interior lay outs of homes. This bill provides a number of exceptions to the aesthetics rules. First and foremost, this bill does not regulate aesthetics that a municipality or county may seek to regulate, in terms of multi family construction, or commercial constructions. It does not impact historic districts, or historic homes whether those are on national registry, or whether it is a local estate or national. It does not exempt anything that would be involved with respect to safety, manufactured housing trailers

[Speaker changes.] national...anything that complies with National Flood Insurance and obviously it does not in any way impede municipalities from being able to regulate the height, bulk, orientation and location of a structure, a home on a particular lot. It doesn't effect screenings and buffers, and it does not in any way, effect homeowners' associations or covenants that have been agreed to. What this bill is...the purpose of this bill, I think, is very straightforward. We have had a number of municipalities across this state that have taken the zoning regulations, the clear, plain language of the zoning provisions of this state where the General Assembly has spelled out what that grant of power is under 160A and they have taken it far afield. And, in some cases, to the absurd, which I think a coupla the speakers may allude to in a moment...and give you some examples. What we are doing is we are restoring the balance so that individuals have the ability to be able to have some choice in their housing and what that housing looks like. Now...this is supported obviously by the home builders, it's supported by the North Carolina Realtors Association, but it is also, as important as those groups, this bill is strongly supported by the North Carolina Housing Coalition...and those are the folks that, among other groups, they work with Habitat for Humanity and they have had tremendous difficulties in a number of areas around the state, a number of municipalities, being able to do projects because of cost considerations involving simply matters of aesthetics. And that should not be. So what we are doing in this legislation is we are bringing back the statute to the original meaning. We are making sure that there are plenty of exceptions so that we do not upset planned developments, we do not upset historic districts but we do provide both for choice...consumers, people looking to buy homes, and this bill will also provide in the long run, more choices for the working families of this state. You talk about teachers, firefighters, policemen, others...working people deserve to be able to afford to live in homes like everyone else. So, with that, Mister Speaker, I believe that Mister...Representative Moffitt has a clarifying amendment. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt, state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Send forth an amendment, Mister Speaker. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moffitt moves to amend the bill on page one, Line 18, and page two, Line 17, by deleting the phrase "or modular". [Speaker changes.] Gentleman has the floor. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Members of the House, this is a technical correction, simply stated the exception regarding manufacturing housing which is regulated by HUD stands on its own, and when you include "or modular", which is regulated under building codes, it is inappropriately placed in the bill in that area. Appreciate your support. [Speaker changes.] Further discussion on Representative Moffitt's amendment? Several members with their lights on. Any...further discussion, further debate? If not, Representative Moffitt's amendment is before us. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. Clerk will open the vote. Clerk will close the machine and record the vote. Those in favor are 113, those opposed 2. The amendment passes. We're back on the bill. [Speaker changes.] Representative Avila, state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] I'd like to ask a question of the bill's sponsor, if I may. [Speaker changes.] Representative Dollar, do you yield? [Speaker changes.] I yield. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. Representative Dollar, I have issues in a coupla' instances within my district that I need some clarification. I'm not a member of the subcom... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

Committee of Great Reform even though I’m on great reform. In one instance there was a subdivision that was started with a builder and was not completed. And someone took it over and the building as I understand it, that was being proposed for the finishing of the subdivision wasn’t up to par with what was originally started. And people were real concerned about their property values being damaged. And actually the builder, I guess because of these types of ordinance enforcement were, was brought to code or to the satisfaction of the neighborhood. I’m assuming by the municipality. What kinds of protections are there going to be with the removal of the or passage of this bill in a situation like this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To answer your question Representative Avila, Developer Agreements which are covered under 160A-400.2, I think and following, those agreements would continue to be in effect for the subsequent owners of the property or further individuals that would either buy it in foreclosure or buy it and wanna to continue to make to develop those agreements that were put in place by the municipality would continue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So clarification on that. Let’s say the quality, just simply the quality of the building materials. Can they under the code that you’re talking about. Are they that specific that they can say you need to put in pella windows instead of others. I mean that’s the kind of thing that a subdivisions is being advertised as? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, if there’s an negotiated agreement, whatever was in writing obviously and agreed to by the municipalities and by the parties would continue to survive. So as far as specifics in a given agreement, I don’t know. But if it’s in the written in the agreement, it would survive. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Second question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In the proposed legislation there are areas of a historic nature in the registries and things of that nature and in the one, you talk about the local registries. Sometimes areas don’t really go through a process of having it formally identified as a historical area. And if they. Let’s say a downtown area wants to maintain a certain flavor or certain appearance and everything. Would that be possible with the passage of 150? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, yes on two fronts. Because. Of course if you got a downtown that involves commercial, then obviously this bill doesn’t affect commercial development. But if you’re talking about a downtown neighborhood, they can, those neighbors can get together and agree and have a neighborhood if every, all the property owners agree. They can have a neighborhood overlay district that would govern them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Final question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The other case I know we do have some municipalities that have carried this to the extreme or we wouldn’t have the bill here. There are others; however, have been very judicious in how they work with builders and with neighborhoods in the development of aesthetics. What would, what would a municipality be able do in the case you got somebody who wants to build something that just doesn’t fit in the neighborhood. It’s very aesthetically jarring, maybe whatever. But they have no control and the neighbors aren’t happy with it and it’s not a pretty situation. What do we do in a case like that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, if you’re talking about Enfield where there's no neighborhood overlay district, where there’s no homeowners association, where there’s no convenance. I would just say this, number one, if it’s a builder building a house, they’re gonna want to build something that going to sale. And in addition to that, the municipality continues to be able to regulate those things in zoning and in terms of the location of that structure on the piece of property, the height, the number of stories. All of those things that are provided for in current law would in the statues, they would be able to enforce. And beyond that, if a particular municipality wanted to do something beyond what is provided for in statute, they could certainly bring a bill to the General Assembly and the General Assembly could consider that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you,??

Representative Holley, state your purpose [Speaker Changes] speak the bill [Speaker Changes] Again the lady has the floor[Speaker Changes] I personally have no problem with part of this bill but I think that this bill in some ways effects my community in another way. We don’t have communities of protective ??. When you’re living inside the beltline of the city where you have neighborhoods that don’t have protective ?? , the uniformity of look of the neighborhoods and things like that are extremely important. And this bill will kind of destroy the unified development ordinances that many communities have developed and cities and town have developed. That’s one. The second one which is more important, is this interior part that I have little problems with. If you living in areas; say NC State University, you have those big beautiful homes over there, there’s nothing to keep you from putting in four kitchens. For every kitchen you put in you can have four residents and this ends up being rooming houses and multiple family dwellings in what is historically a single family home community. And that’s where I’m against the bill. I think it goes too far. Thank you [Speaker Changes] Members we have with us in the gallery, we’d like to extend a courtesy of the gallery and a welcome to Austin elementary school from Wilmington. If the members of that school; the students will stand and let us welcome you. Representative Faircloth, state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] ask a question to the bill sponsor [Speaker Changes] Representative Dollar, do you yield? [Speaker Changes] I yield [Speaker Changes] Thank you representative Dollar, I had a constituent that called and is from one of our smaller communities in Guilford County. The community made up of a lot of historic structures and what have you. And the question he had is that a part of their community is included in the scenic byways project of the state and he wondered what effect this might have on structures within that scenic byway. Now I not that familiar with scenic byways but it apparently does have some historic structures on it as it goes through the state. [Speaker Changes]Well, I know the scenic byways are designations that were put in place. For example of a stretch of roadway that is viewed as being scenic and they want to designate it as a scenic byway primarily to encourage tourism. There are requirements like for example if you’re talking about the Blue Ridge Parkway at least as far as the parkway controls the territory; they’re able to control anything in it. And of course, as you know, one of the problems they’ve had there is that things beyond their control. In this situation I don’t think the scenic byways, somebody can answer the question better than I. But it’s not; to my knowledge the scenic byways does not actually control developmental law it’s just it’s just a recognition of a nice road to drive down. [Speaker Changes] ?? Have a question [Speaker Changes] Does the gentleman yield? [Speaker Changes] I yield [Speaker Changes] If there were a historic structure in the scenic byway, does the language in the bill that speaks to historic structures, would it apply to that? [Speaker Changes]I don’t think the byways would be controlling at all. However in lines 11 through 15, it does address structures located in areas designated as local historic district; structures listed on the national registry of historic places or structures that are individually designated as local, state, or national historic landmarks. So if it’s historic, it should be covered in some way in this bill. [Speaker Changes]Thank you [Speaker Changes] Representative Glazier, state your purpose [Speaker Changes]debate the bill, Mr. Speaker[Speaker Changes]The gentleman has the floor. [Speaker Changes]Thank you very much. This is sort of a classic reminder to me that sometimes we can all get lost in our ideology and stake out positions early on without, sort of listening to the other side. And often, it may be useful to do that and to read the law. And in this case, early on when I first saw the bill filed, my initial inclination was to be opposed because I’ve spent a lot of time in the last two years on the floor suggesting that I had respectful disagreement on an overreach with regard to limiting local authority. But it would be helpful

I think as a reminder to all of us, it certainly was to me, to go back and before you do that, read the bill and read the law. I was reminded of that in this case so I did go back and read the bill and read the law. And I have changed my opinion and actually feel strongly about the opinion. I am going to be supporting the bill for a couple of reasons. Number one. The North Carolina supreme court in the Lanvale case written by justice Jackson, I think last year if I'm not mistaken or middle of last year, made it very clear that the points that representative Dollar said are accurate. There are a number of municipalities, mine included, who are engaging in what may be very important decisions with regard to aesthetics that do benefit a community. But they don't have any authority to be doing it and that's fundamentally the problem. In the end, it may be very good policy. It may in fact be what we ought to consider as representative Dollar suggested in a bill later this session to look at perhaps expanding the authority to get it exactly the issue representative Avila raised and because there isn't a good answer for that right now. But the answer can't be for the municipalities to create these ordinances when they have no authority under the statutes of the state to be doing that. So that's a policy decision we will have to make. I don't think this body is ready to change the laws that exist but it seems clear that a number of municipalities are violating the law. I got a letter, as we all did I think, inundated by emails and letters in the last week on this bill, and this highlights the point to me. This particular municipality who I think is trying to do wonderful things talks about how this bill would negate the ability of them to create ordinances to deal with location and architectural stylings of windows and doors. Well frankly, I don't think it is any of the municipalities' business or government's right what the architectural style of my door ought to be; nor frankly, absent unusual circumstance, the color of the brick I use. I think there are complete ways for municipalities to do this. Number one. If it is in subdivisions, the bill creates a full exemption. When people move in subdivisions, they agree to a particular covenance. They don't have to move there but when they choose to I think it's perfectly legitimate and I think the bill preserves all the private contract rights that it has to for those people to have to obey whatever the restrictions are including the color of the house and the garage door. But that's a private contract. That is not the government coming in and telling me I have to have a green door. Third point I guess I would make is, back to the home owners association, home builders association and the realtors. Aside from the six exemptions that exist in the bill which are pretty broad including the safety one and the private contract exemption one which we've talked about, all of us know in here there are ways outside of that, that municipalities will be able to enforce an awful lot of regulation. They can do it through their zoning power and through their ability to zone and their ability to approve particular subdivision capacities. So let us not fool ourselves that they don't have a power to do that. It may be more indirectly but they do have that. So it's not outside of their capacity to do it. They may not like how they get there to do it but they do it and they do it all the time. So I don't view this as an all or nothing proposition. I do view it as a leveling of the playing field in a sense. And I do view it as stating what the law is. I will say to the home builders and realtors, from my perspective, be careful what you ask for. You're about to get it. And that is you will have municipalities, I think, using those other means in more indirect ways. And so I think there is an incentive for both the home builders and the realtors and communities to work with their municipalities to create appropriate ordinances. That there can be agreement on community standards about. And I think that there will be pressure and there ought to be on us to re-look at the zoning laws we have to make sure we can answer representative Avila's question and that we don't allow things to happen in our inner cities that would really deplete economic capacity there or deplete home values in the community. That having been said, that's all about talking to each other. That's all about community standards and working together. And one thing that I think this bill highlights and why I am going to support it is because the only option that doesn't exist is to illegally impose something and

Tiled town like the timecard violations will it be person is a stage, as they develop into four major offshore hired a timely and other tours there is a very dependent on airplanes to bring people to come and visit us and obviously a valuable commodities dealer, I'm so I was concerned about the name of the toolbar count on the outer banks call about this and weekends long time and as well as the $1.00 and realtors and, what we found was that his bill still gave us the tools at the times and we didn't roll the most important aspects of others the overlay of districts the local historic district one response and national flood insurance firm handles me if it were to be a potential when we RE operators of all that can give me a lot about sprawl and prevents beginning to reduce other regulations that trial of $1.00. His major industry homeowners and that no state money sale of the fact that built the representatives of the station purpose ?? is going to ask a list of questions become a ?? and am I had a beer as hard as a result of this equation, where he is the southernmost region is protesting all users, time and means bill, as the first All-Star team a depleted local control ?? : just as they wish. One of the question is what you play and local government role of relief among governments or three times. And the outlines of the issue of question of reading from the window is time of the missing persons and leisure reference to the actions of some order, functions county's service failure seven agency's office state prosecutor for the convenience of women's time certain portions of the state's chairs or in the actions of such functions in researching two or 7 minutes and legislative control access for this property that I'm a constitutional provision of Judea and you will replace his car that fills out a way, it has the routing of the many policies of city government policies of unfunded mandates that some of the places here are times objective is to last in particular are occurring on happy with his mail without they did not have the rights to revive time-stamp-out are asking the City Council will we are certainly protecting out sessions for rejecting all home buyers for ensuring that they have shorts or ensure our own family server and out of this place is some other events until we know that really the rigid time has in some of that person's wagers of real estate signs his you cannot exercise of the AMR , in reinforcements to the local level without the underlying statutory authority of the jail time and has essentially what is wrong or offer some fine in the second issue of the route list, as well-conceived was maintains as if you suspect is the raw and some of these weird in which a recipe for acting on the day she has served as how these we have an arms and the insight into this week, the official added as the house of the U.S. industrial insurance off and then dry list where we want to give in and not the deaths of as many as 14 concept of major traveling to local control and local control within five times just simply as provide for Allstate ?? of domain names of the U.S. ?? of a reason, if we had no is simply got was the issues of the architecture for initial house and riled description of the callers in the subdivisions of all I could support a bill in line with the time seven, and the bar ?? ??..............

the written amendment of course, from third reading, that would essentially limit it that you have been quoted in the press as saying, basically disturbing to you about cities telling in new subdivisions what colors to use, and this and that. Would you support a bill that limited that and not interfered with what neighborhoods in Durham are asking? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well Rep. Luebke, I think that the bill is well written as it stands, and addresses those aesthetic elements that need to be addressed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House. I will say that for our city, and I think for others in our area, this is seen as a very much intrusive bill that's undermining the work of what I know our city council is doing in protection of our neighborhoods, our older established neighborhoods, and at the request of those neighborhoods. And I will say in particular among those lines, in last Sunday's Herald Sun, our Durham paper, the home builder's association of the Triangle Orange Durham Chatham county, [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess our part of the triangle. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Orange Durham Chatham was asked how they felt about this bill and they said they really didn't ask for this bill, didn't need this bill. They didn't feel there was any problem in any of the three counties. And why? Because what the cities are doing, and I'll be specific about Durham, what Durham is doing is not messing with new subdivisions with their policy, they're protecting older established neighborhoods. And again, to disagree with my friend Rep. Glazier, there is something that is appropriate about a government, at the request of a neighborhood, saying what kinds of housing are not appropriate. Imagine a set, a whole neighborhood of 1920s, 1930 houses. And in comes somebody who buys a couple of those houses here, you know, first house, fourth house, eighth house, out of 20 house or 15 houses, tears them down, and wants to put up a house that has a 3 car garage in the front. Totally, totally disrupting the aesthetics, to use that term, of the neighborhood. Those houses have nice front por- We all know what those houses look like built in th 20s and 30s. Got front porches because there was no air conditioning, everybody sat out on the front porch. All of a sudden, that neighborhood is disrupted by a house here, a house here, a house here, that has a 3 car garage in the front. Now in Durham, neighborhoods have gone to our city council and said "Protect us from that. Please protect us from that." And they have. And another example. It would, I know that Rep. Foushee is quite aware of this, but I'll go ahead and mention it because it was in the paper, the African-American neighborhood of Northside, many of you may know if you went to Carolina, that neighborhood is in danger of really being undermined by speculators who bought houses and were turning them into dorm rooms, in effect dorm rooms, for Carolina students. The neighborhood did not want itself disrupted, and it didn't want itself really destroyed by the intrusion really of rooming houses. They went to their town council, the town council basically put a overlay on that part of Chapel Hill and said "You can't have multiple unrelated people living in these houses" in order to save the neighborhood. Those 2 examples I've given, one from Durham one from Chapel Hill, the city council, town council can no longer do that if this bill passes the way it is. And I think that most of us, if you think about it in those terms from a perspective of neighborhood protection, [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] could not support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to see if Rep. Luebke would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Rep. Luebke, where did the city get the authority to do that anyway? I mean part of why we're here is because the Supreme Court said they were far exceeding their authority, so where did they get their authority anyway? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well Rep. Stevens, you're an attorney I'm not. But I know that- I know what our city's been doing, and I think it's good policy, and I'd be glad to work with you, we've still got time, we'll put in a bill that'll allow the cities to protect the neighborhoods. Will you help me on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield for a follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But you indicate that they don't have the legal authority to do it. So you want [SPEAKER CHANGES] No Ma'am. I didn't say that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will wait until the question has been asked. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So I'm asking you where they got the legal authority to tell independent home purchasers what they can or cannot do with their private home property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I'd say first, Rep. Stevens, that you're not addressing what I'm addressing which is about neighborhoods protecting

sales. We're not talking about individual homeowners. If you're gonna deal with the individual homeowner that's one thing and that part of the bill Representative Stevens that part of the bill I would support. But what is of concern to us in Durham, Chapel Hill and where the home builders don't even have a problem with it in Durham Orange Chatham is these protections for established neighborhoods. This bill completely eliminates that and if you represent that there is not protection under the law that there's no statutory authority then I again would ask you whether you and I could put a bill in and get it through this general assembly because without your support I ain't getting it through. So that'd be my comment. So to speak finally on the bill members I think if you draw a distinction between individual homes or new subdivisions where cities what I would say exceed good sense and established neighborhoods you see we have a problem with this bill. Cause if it's the one on new subdivisions and not saying you can't paint it pink or whatever you want to paint it that's one thing. But to not allow neighborhoods to protect themselves and note that this bill looks like it protects those older neighborhoods but it only does if they're on historic they have the historic status. There have some kind of neighborhood preservation status. If they don't have that legal status they're just in an old neighborhood from the 20s and 30s they're not protected by this bill and those homes no longer will be able to get the protections they now have from my city and the town of Chapel Hill for example so [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under those circumstances I urge you to vote no on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Luebke would yield for [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you familiar that there are neighborhood overlay districts and that it is provided for both in the bill and the continuing statute that those neighbors those homeowners could get together and create a neighborhood overlay district that would resolve the issue that you've been talking about. Aren't you aware of that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar. I'm aware that this has been a point of controversy for the neighbors who have asked that this bill be voted down, for the city council that's asked this vote be bidden down, for the city planning department that's urged it's voted down. So maybe you and I can talk between second and third reading and try to show those folks in Durham who are contacting all of us in the Durham delegation, show us where they're wrong. Not reading the bill right and or maybe we need a clarifying amendment. But from what I'm hearing from my constituents this will harm neighborhoods and is not a good bill. Thank you. Urge members to defeat the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Terry 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. This has been somewhat of a conflicting piece of legislation as it relates to some of the same issues that Representative Luebke was just debating. But my concern is about the in fill and looking at I think in the committee Representative Dollar did address the issue about in fill. Neighborhood friendly development really does require that the people in a municipality have some input as it relates to the new things that are coming. And in the area that I represent there is a lot of opportunity for infill. And I have to preface this by saying that I am neither I am never anti development nor business because I understand its value and I realize that we have to have it in order to have the great state of North Carolina that we do have. But I am eminently interested in insuring that there is an opportunity for input from the citizenry as to what comes into a neighborhood and a development where there are miles and miles of spotty development opportunity for in fill development that will keep cities in that inner core aesthetically valuable and resellable if you will. And the idea of this legislation does cause me to be concerned regarding exactly how we can bring forward an opportunity for this without destroying the opportunity for the developer to develop and for the people who live there to be able to live there in what I consider to be a neighborhood friendly environment. So in

care of his intent is to say, has been made to raise any time that he and his deal and the submitting back, has been thwarted at events ?? and one has enormous the the development of recognize made know a place to hide this maker-gone up with the fort Myer four times, here's the sprawl is out with a 400 people in-the time-this is one day about whether the parallel understand it all of that weight of the hot China and knows why are all data management of Indonesian hostile in a small well I had, with a couple of times and no page 1-1- person but the reality that the other hand on the CIA analyst at Meta understand it, and, with the help of a dry lake that we should have NT-the jobs that require as the town's ?? about events that have made a once in leading the data into and out of action, action but when a defendant, less than a-vis was the father and the plan, and five of the contents of the portal, expressed fear of the ??, and the people have made the bill had not built the pudding and labor mobility, has a college before person time the station purpose speaker of the country has made no idea was in his free time to the speaker of the Congress will continue the sponsors, there was no action was overcome with widespread use of technology would expect the assault I'm starting against the homeless, with more of a five-pound time for five of the region's memory of former juror played for his accounting and the master of divinity Supreme Court this time of the house members happened to me the right time to bring to light offers bill and I think it's inappropriate to ½ are two common and extension to prove the authorities in the song is now the stairs and coach of the time his comments inline isn't all that sure oppose the bill for a moment ago that the trendy thing, one time only for his recommended out of the bill to you procession president ?? is not a question for the house's passage of the house may substitute house bill one fifties and a second realism that time all President Clinton ?? who was important point for an inference 2700 house be some time, one of the season's best second reading about section two-objection adding and race no reason to come ?? base does is being sent shares with john sun, 20 and the stupid timeout you may have no vested in the audience you know you are in the ?? race identity as if there is evidence of shares of musical. As the company was put in the house bill one city to partly ?? at the chair is fine as: 61 partly they substitute for house bill 1621 building, act established by 484 practitioners Johnson of all time it's the perfect place for PlayStation purpose the downtown is recognizing made no major-speaker of the parade this bill, which is the asset forfeiture ??..............

Co-sponsored with Representative Jordan and Representative McGrady, and has unanimously passed the JB Committee and State Personnel. It does exactly what it says, which is, we currently have a mandatory retirement age for judges and judicial officials, Court of Appeals, Supreme Court, Superior Court, District Court, but the magistrates were not included in that. This is to put them in the same position as all other judicial officials. If we decide one day to change the age, it changes for them all. Otherwise, everyone's in it. It also didn't put it into effect until January 1st, 2015, which is the next reappointment date, so that no one would be caught off guard. But, and Mr. Speaker I know of no real opposition except for a few of the magistrates that are 72. But Representative Whitmire, I believe, has an amendment which will cure all of that and I completely consent to his amendment and you ask you recognize Representative Whitmire. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire moves to amend the bill on page one line 12 by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before we begin the debate on the amendment the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to students, teachers, and parent chaperons from Hasty Elementary in Thomasville, Davidson County. Please stand and let us welcome you. Representative Whitmire is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. The amendment does two things. One, it allows those who reach the mandatory retirement age within their term to simply finish out their term. And two, for counties, especially smaller counties, it allows them ample time to look to the future and make sure they have candidates to fill those positions. I ask that you support the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, I completely consent to the amendment and believe it, sort of, does the grandfathering that Representative Whitmire wants. And with that I think there will be no opposition to the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Whitmire for the House committee substitute for House Bill 161. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will op machine record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the amendment passes. We are now back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate? Representative Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I will be as brief as I can. I concur with the gentleman from Cumberland that this does treat magistrates the same as it does the other, the other judicial officials. However, each year that I pass the sun one more time, I become a little bit less convinced that it's wise to impose an age restriction on someone who is able and willing to serve. And, while I, as I said, I agree that this bill does treat magistrates the same, I will vote no because I don't believe that a restriction based solely on age should should be put in place. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Duane Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think Mr. Lewis just said it exactly as I would have, probably better. It's, it's, I hate to use the word ageism but there's so many people I know over 72 that are way more than qualified. I think that should be 100% irrelevant if they're qualified to do the job. Quite a few of the legislators in here, I think, that are getting close to 72. Unless we want to have an amendment that says there's also mandatory age here, I'd urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House committee substitute to House Bill 161 as amended on its second reading. All those in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. Clerk will open the vote.

of ?? deaths have a similar that a sudden decline as a substitute house bill was easy was and is presently mountains and will be rather, it is an author of the discussion president of the question before the house passed the house may substitute house bill times and was it was a real dir say on all president does. And he has another house may substitute for house bill was 61 as its presses are time isn't it holding residents of house bill one a three part I'm decides to 5000183 of the three, back to Las Vegas to conduct a local housing is a 1 to 2, of course is one of Fulton street and one last time any other kid very soft Johnson and author of the actors and more PlayStation purpose, a first time in S.F. Austin and the country as important a partly that's the theme of this committee of all page one line 18 by time all can be easily active. Does resume, made this statement is the house and the date that he sees someone has requested by the hospital's make sure that the deal has been sometimes require that all hospital the day of the Atlantic missions have to have this type of permit his identity when the teacher ÷ court orders for together the command riled down procession President Clinton question for the house passed to become as important as in Sam or the house may substitute for all time in three columns and one, was president was ?? who was important one of times the democratic nominating him and a password and will resume normal person for PlayStation purpose the house, one day, sometimes made calls and an agent of this house this happens, happier last of the district Atty. bob bell from Gaston county and the loss of assault with a perfectionist firms Koppers time Jeff, is this true story and west and North Carolina discount houses with the sports mail at the house judiciary the second time on still serving as it is another option to let all on since their blessings are taken hostage to be admitted for reviving the proper etiquette is shared by Mr. Van on this small city of what those samples may was called the common stance in additional than 28th edition cooperation in essence of sanders's recognize initially for the disability blood samples to get the chance to resign as a necessary as a significant battle of the prosecution DNA-we're using once it was a past president has because then the SQL at the spending on the time west will have a list are often have testified in court and can be arriving reports and other end of the excimer laser beam me ask you about files and take in two years to reach some time on the availability services more often with December, hospitals and this is so I'm a loss of vision and others, support to make procession president not a question for the house passed the house may substitute I'm the one in three dozen on separate aldermen of President Clinton ?? and reaching to report places in our was important 118 am a firm commitment in house be time to grouse Billings reasons past second reason of the ocean will be rather sometimes the author of the discussion for the nine one question for the house passed time a substitute house bill 183 as well as the real figure say on all president it hasn't house may substitute for house building to raise money for ?? …………

passed its third reading and will be engrossed and sent to the senate. House Bill 189, the clerk will read. [speaker changes] Committee substitute for House Bill 189 the bill's been titled, enact to amend the laws regarding information provided to non custodial parents subject to wage withholding orders under the laws pertaining to child support. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [speaker changes] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [speaker changes] To explain the bill, Mr. Speaker. [speaker changes] The gentleman is recognized. [speaker changes] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. This is a bill with Representative Stevens and representative Hall requested by the family law council within the bar association. Essentially, the current statute lists required contents of non 4d child support orders that contain an income withholding requirement and a 4d child support order. It lists out a series f things that have to be included and complied with for each requirement. The statute was unclear and it now makes clear that all of the requirements of the statute have to be complied with and then additionally, it was negotiated and this was a part that was worked out with a series of stakeholder meetings that Representative Stevens got together and that is to make sure that under some circumstances where there has been essentially a court order that the child support enforcement agency has to provide the party owing support with the address of the custodial parent or child because members of the bar have been requesting that information hadn't been able to get it. HSS is now satisfied with the bill. All of the stakeholders are satisfied. I know of no objection to the bill. And it passed unanimously from JC. Thank you. [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to House Bill 189 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative and 1 in the negative. The house committee substitute to House Bill 189 has passed the second reading without objection. Will be read a third time. [speaker changes] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to House Bill 189 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The house committee substitute for House Bill 189 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the senate. Representative Daughtry, the gentleman was in the chamber at the time of the vote, does the gentleman wish to be recorded as having voted aye? The gentleman is recorded as having voted aye. House Bill 209, the clerk will read. [speaker changes] House Bill 209, a bill to be titled enacted to amend the laws pertaining to domestic violence in civil no contact orders. General assembly of North Carolina enacts. [speaker changes] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [speaker changes] To speak on the bill. [speaker changes] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, this bill also comes to us from the bar association and its for two specific requests. One, in a domestic violence protective order, we used to do consent orders all of the time, but the court of appeals said you can't do that. You have to have a finding of fact of violence unless the legislature amends its statute. Here we are amending the statute to say you can do a consent order without having to find a specific finding of violence between the parties. The second part is under 50c orders where neighbor takes neighbor or somebody's mad at their friend or whatever. This provision simply-the amendment simply allows the court to assess attorney fees if it feels like the action was frivolous on either party's part. That's all this bill does. [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 209 on its second reading. All of those in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 118 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. House Bill 209 has passed its second reading without objection. Will be read a third time. [speaker changes] General assembly of North Carolina enacts. [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 209 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes have it. House Bill 209 has passed its third reading; will be sent to the senate. Before we go forward, the chair would like to extend a courtesy to the gallery to a group of middle school students from John Griffin Middle School in Fayetteville. I think they're over here to my right. Please stand and let us welcome you. Also, welcome to the teachers and parents who may have joined the students. Welcome guys. House joint resolution 271--

[Speaker Change] The clerk will read. [Speaker Change] House Joint Resolution two seventy one. A joint resolution providing for the confirmation of the appointment of Don M Baily to the Utilities Commission. The House resolves, the Senate concurring. [Speaker Change] Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the House Bill resolution. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is the Governors pick for to go on to the Utilities Commission. This is to fulfill an unexpired term. Few things about Mr. Bailey. I think you only need to know two things. First off he’s an engineer. That’s good. Second is he’s from Rutherford County. That should be enough. But if you need more, Mr. Bailey is a civil engineer. I guess a third positive thing is he did graduate from NC State. That’s a good thing also. He is a general manager of ATI Allvac. They’re a medical urgical company works in super alloys. A lot of technical stuff that I don’t think I understand all of it. He has spent some time at [??]. And has a lot of experience in the engineering field. So I ask for your yes vote on this announcement resolution. [Speaker Change] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of House Joint Resolution two seventy one on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record please do so at this time. Representative Horne. The clerk [??] machine having recorded the vote. One hundred having voted in the affirmative. None in the negative. The House Joint Resolution two seventy one has passed its second reading without objection. Will be read a third time. [Speaker Change] The House resolves the Senate concurring. [Speaker Change] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the House is the passage of House Joint Resolution two seventy one on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The eyes have it. House Joint Resolution two seventy one has passed its third reading, will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, we are going to carry over the Senate Bills until tomorrow. This completes the calendar. Notices and announcements. Representative Daughtry, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Make an announcement. Make two announcements. [Speaker Change] [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized. [Speaker Change] Many of you, if I gave you the impression that the Full J Committee is going to meet tomorrow, it is not going to meet tomorrow. Rather the Sub Committees will meet as they are presently scheduled. The second announcement is that the, I’d like the Co-Chairs of the Judiciary Sub Committees to meet with me right after the session. Representative Samuel’s conference room. [Speaker Change] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] For an announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House. Thursday morning at eight o’clock we will have a meeting of the Full Joint Appropriations Committee. So we want everybody there right at eight o’clock. And if you are not on Appropriations, you are also welcome to come. We anticipate having a presentation from the Governor’s budget director. [Speaker Change] Representative Hurley, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] A moment of personal privilege please. [Speaker Change] The House will come to order. The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] I just wanted to clarify where Representative Brandon and I met the other night at eleven o’clock because I understand there is some acoustics problems in here. We met at the television station. We were called in to be on television about this Bill. About doing something about this. I just wanted to clarify that since I’ve had questions about it. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Chair regrets that Representative Brandon is not in the Chamber. Representative Hastings, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] A moment of personal privilege Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] The House will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker, it’s with great sadness that I announce that seven Marines based at North Carolina’s, and part of North Carolina’s Second Expeditionary Force, were killed in an accident in Nevada. And other Marines were injured. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] An announcement. [Speaker Change] The gentleman is recognized. [Speaker Change] State Personnel Committee will meet promptly at noon tomorrow. It’s should be very brief. We have only one Bill to hear. It’s House Bill two eighty, Public Staff Duty to Represent the Public. So be there at twelve or you will miss the meeting. Thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative John Bell, please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] A point of personal privilege Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] The House will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Change] One of the Counties I serve is the [??] County and Representative Graham and I are very.

Happy to announce that on Saturday the Kingson High school women won their first state championship in basketball. And the men repeated as the 2A state champions. So we're very blessed to have a rich basketball tradition in North County. Thank you.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lambest, please state your purpose.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of Personal privilege.[SPEAKER CHANGES]Gentlemen is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to congratulate representative Conrad for introducing and having approved her first bill by unanimous vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentlemen is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My seat mate, Rina Turner also passed her first bill on a unanimous vote. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Storange please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] Important announcement [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentlemen is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] While we are waiting on representative Blus to pass his first bill on unanimous vote. The republicans will caucus immediately after session in the auditorium. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larryhall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Announcements mr speaker.[SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentlemen is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]democratic caucus will meet one hour before session tomorrow at 1 oclock pm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements? The clerk will read.[SPEAKER CHANGES] The house committee on appropriations, sub committee on health and human services will not meet tomorrow. The house committee on commerce and job development sub committee on energy and emerging markets will meet tomorrow at 10 am in room 425 of the legislative office building. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement [SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentlemen is recognized [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members this is just a reminder before we adjourn the UNC board of governors nominating committee will meet at 4 oclock today in room 1228. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore will the gentlemen reinstate.[SPEAKER CHANGES] I just announced that the board of governors nominating committee will be meeting today at 4 oclock in 1228. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, incidentally the meeting time tomorrow will be at 3 not at 2. The chair just got an update between two competing. We will be meeting at 2 tomorrow. Glad we were able to work that out. Further notices and announcements? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr speaker subject to the re-referrals the bills and resolutions receipt of committee reports receipt of messages from the senate moved that house do now adjourn to reconvene tomorrow at 2 oclock 3 oclock you guys got me confused. 2 oclock pm[SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative moore moves, seconded by representative Conrad and Turner that subject to the receipt of committee report re-referral of bills and receipt of messages from the senate that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Wednesday march 20th at 3pm. All in favor say aye all opposed say no. The ayes have it, the house is now adjourned.