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 | April 3, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

if the Valencia Utley at a three-contact the taxation service fact that the times it happens, said the ability to act as the dollars and 40 station purposes, time is right has made no uses the overview Alsatian all 2000 – thirties I saw 2000—1.4 all-in rebate including the developer and see if another, there's been no infrastructure in the messaging support as a player possession president I'll it's not a question for the house's passage of house bill presentment second real and the whole President Clinton and riled ?? who was important 100 exam that event, nominated house bill. Since the second report by all accounts ?? house bill 224 Hartley days at sea and the house bill 2.4 to the final active in various amendments a captive of 16-August and is well respected syntax time Johnson of North Carolina Dr. Said about the PlayStation purpose hospital bills as recognize me to go to the times bigger than his bills has made more in section one, and they viewed more as soon as school to have easy to have a policy adopted one counting up with the counties across the state accidents time, on Sunday. If I use planning department accounting discussions with tiny cameo as part of the 120 days of the county to say, there is currently encompass money to defend riled in section three on the pretense, serialization of those prohibit it was a concession to sizzle house bill 925 times less session and also last section to the counties to sue concedes below some point to the ball to the point of the state as well as the city's planning and zoning on warrants a desire was rest of the presidency has a and ?? person is either has important partly as a forensic medicine and the whole page one by the time of the grays 81200013 and substituted the brads witness at trial small does recognize explain this to shaker this is a Federal audit of routed the night which the center's the United Nations when that becomes higher time of the midst of all 120 victory transition from the state operator for structure to the county right before structure of misunderstanding or discussions with the city and found the cause of parties are abandoning the update of the shaker processing credit they didn't knock a question for the house passage of human support payments and receive the house may substitute number to the times before alderman of all President Clinton ?? China Freyer where he sees as a way was important one is located renewed the debate in the passengers and fishermen time is the scene in ways that has made no money and announced the sixties when fuller and China SI know that men anything seen so many on right now is the Astros U.S. letter your money thing, or are self training, ?? and eat you up here in Howard E. Cowart, but instead I look at you can hear he is expected in , I think they'll try last year that happens in 1990, R is seen as a ??............

Representative: …the implication that this has for your cities, and, join with me in opposing this bill. And, Mr. Speaker, to be recognized to send forth an amendment? Speaker: The lady is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. Clerk: Representative Fisher moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 15, by deleting that line and substituting the following Speaker: The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman, this amendment will actually, if the bill passes, it will make the bill conform to the way the statue was previously. Before this bill, that we are looking at now – according to the old statute, there was a requirement that said that there must be appointed a member from the county to the planning and zoning board and to the board of adjustment to work in concert with the city to formulate zoning rules. Once this – if this bill passes, then there will no longer be that need, as the previous statute required, for their to be a county appointment to the city planning and zoning board, or to the city board of adjustment, because no longer will the city have a say over what happens in extra-territorial jurisdiction. So, I would ask that you vote on this amendment, to just leave the bill the way it is, and to move those members of the county to the city planning and zoning and city board of adjustment, because the new statute, will no longer give cities the authority to do zoning in the county, or annexation, for that matter, until 2025. Thank you for your support. Speaker: Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. Representative: To speak in opposition to the amendment. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Representative: My good friend and colleague from Buckham, I respect what she is trying to do but, I think, if you look at the long term history at what has occurred in Buckham County, the county representative on the board of adjustments, planning and zoning, have been some very good members. They have represented the interests of the city very well. Many of them have been chairs of particular boards. The county does have a significant interest in what happens in the county, so, I think it can be argued it’s appropriate for county rp’s to remain on board of adjustments. I would like this chamber to understand and note that the political majority of commissioners is the same as the political majority of Asheville city council, so they should be able to sit down and work together, and so I do not think this amendment would be necessary under these terms and conditions. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Fisher to house committee substitute to house bill 224. 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: 39 having voted in the affirmative, 75 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Catamb, please state your purpose. Representative: I meant to vote aye. Speaker: Record… Representative: Sorry, I meant to vote no – I messed up twice. [laughter] Speaker: The gentleman is not reaffirming his vote. The gentleman wishes to change his vote to having voted no. The gentleman will record his vote. We are back on the bill. Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute 2 to house bill 224 as amended on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 76 having voted in the affirmative, 39 in the negative. The house committee substitute 2 to house bill 224 as amended has passed its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. Clerk: General assembly of NC

[SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute number 2 to House Bill 224 submitted on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The House Committee Substitute number 2 to House Bill 224 is passed as amended, it's passed its third reading, will be engrossed and sent to the senate. Ladies and gentlemen, without objection, the Chair would like to move to House Joint Resolution 259, is there objection? House Joint Resolution 259, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Joint Resolution 259 a joint resolution honoring the life and memory of Edward L. "Ed" Williamson, Former Member of the General Assembly. The House resolves a Senate concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will read the resolution in its entirety. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whereas, Edward L. "Ed" Williamson was born on June 6, 1923, in Cerro Gordo, North Carolina, to C. E. Williamson, Sr. and Lillie McLelland Williamson; and whereas, Ed Williamson received a bachelor's degree from Wake Forest in 1947 and a law degree from the Duke University School of Law in 1953; and whereas, Ed Williamson's education was interrupted during college when he served for three years in the United States Navy during World War II and again during law school when he was called into active service during the Korean War; and Whereas, Ed Williamson began his law career in the Town of Chadbourn and later in the City of Whiteville; and whereas, Ed Williamson served as legal counsel of the Columbus County Schools, the City of Whiteville, and Southeastern Community College for more than 20 years; and whereas, Ed Williamson served as a member of the Board of Trustees of Pembroke State University, now University of North Carolina at Pembroke and as past president of the Chadbourn Rotary Club; and whereas, Ed Williamson was a founder of the Columbus National Bank and the First Investors Savings and Loan; and whereas, Ed Williamson Ed Williamson began his law career in the Town of Chadbourn and later in the City of Whiteville; and whereas, Ed Williamson served as legal counsel of the Columbus County Schools, the City of Whiteville, and Southeastern Community College for more than 20 years; and whereas, Ed Williamson served as a member of the Board of Trustees of Pembroke State University, now the University of North Carolina at Pembroke and as past President of the Chadbourn Rotary Club; and whereas, Ed Williamson was a founder of the Columbus National Bank and the First Investors Savings and Loan; and whereas, Ed Williamson served one term in the North Carolina General Assembly as a member of the House of Representatives in 1959; and whereas, Ed Williamson was inducted into the North Carolina Bar Association General Practice Hall of Fame in 1995 and recognized as a 50-year practicing attorney by the North Carolina State Bar in 2003; and whereas, Ed Williamson was an active member of Whiteville United Methodist Church, where he served as lay leader and chair of the administrative board; and whereas, Ed Williamson was married to the late Sara Benton Williamson and the late Grace Pope Edwards Williamson; and whereas, Ed Williamson died on February 10, 2013, at the age of 89; and whereas, Ed Williamson is survived by his sons, Edward L. "Ren" Williamson Jr. and Carlton F. Williamson; one stepdaughter, Lucilla E. Hudson; one stepson, John Raymond Edwards, III; and five grandchildren, Alice C. Williamson, Van Williamson, Christina Williamson, Emily J. Williamson, and Forrest Williamson; now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives, the Senate concurring: Section 1. The General Assembly honors the memory of Edward L. Williamson and expresses its appreciation for the service he rendered to his community, State, and nation. Section 2. The General Assembly extends its deepest sympathy to the family of Edward L. Williamson for the loss of a beloved family member. Section 3. The Secretary of State shall transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the family of Edward L. Williamson. Section 4. This resolution is effective upon ratification. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Fellow members of the House, it’s indeed an honor to come before you today and recognize someone from my home County of Columbus who has done an outstanding job in their career, ?? law, as you have heard from the resolution, there is lot of points on there that I could make. One of those points might be the fact that he was a one-term member of the House Representatives and I told his son earlier that I might be following in his footsteps too based on some of the things that we do up here in this legislature. But I do feel like that Ed Williamson who has been – I have known the family and known the law firm for long time…

Work with them have done a really outstanding job. It's been the kind of person you would expect to be a really good leader in my home county of Columbus. I do appreciate the fact that his family is here today and I think the Speaker will recognize this a little bit later. I do want to say that if I had to follow in the footsteps of one person, as a civic leader, I would like to follow in Ed Williamson's footsteps. He did die in February of this year at the ripe old age of 89 and I hope, if God's willing, that I will live in good health that long. Mr. Speaker, having said all that I commend the resolution to you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Davis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to speak on the resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house when I first started practicing law in 1977 I was an Assistant District Attorney for the state of North Carolina in Columbus, Bladen, and Brunswick counties. In that capacity I got to know Ed. I tried many cases against him, he was a great adversary, great lawyer, and wonderful mentor. When I was appointed as a federal prosecutor one of the most fascinating cases I was involved with, Ed Williamson was one of the other lawyers on the other side. Once again, a great lawyer, and a great adversary, and a great mentor. Many of you may have read the book, The Devil in Pew 13, which is based on that particular legal case. But, Ed was just a wonderful man. He was somebody I admired very much, I respected very much. His son, Carlton is here today. I got to know Carlton. His oldest son, ??, is one of my best friends and golfing partners. He was here to meet a girl that I grew up with here in Wilmington. His nephew Craig, who was a law school classmate of mine is here. He was a great man, although I did not know what he did as a member of the House, but I'm sure he was a true asset and a credit to us all. I commend the resolution to. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Joint Resolution 259 on its second reading. All in favor, vote aye. All opposed, vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The clerk will lock the machine before the vote. 115 have voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House Bill Resolution 259 has passed its second reading without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House resolves, with Senate concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion? Further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Joint Resolution on 259 on its third reading. All in favor say, aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] All opposed say, no. The aye's have it. House Joint Bill 259 has passed its third reading. It will be sent to the Senate. Representative Shepherd, the gentleman was not recorded on the second reading vote. Does the gentleman wish to be recorded as having voted, aye? Gentleman will be recorded as voting aye. Ladies and gentlemen upon motion of Representative Ken Waddell, of Columbus and Representative Davis, the Chair is happy, and on behalf of all the members of this body, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Mr. Carlton Williamson, Mr. Ren Williamson, Mr. Mitchell Tyler, Mr. Less High, and Mr. Greg Williamson please stand and let us welcome you. [Applause] House Bill 252, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Committee substitute for House Bill 252, a bill has been titled, An Act to Provide Funding for Planned Street and Sidewalk Improvements in the City of Asheville for the 2012 - 2013 fiscal year and to repeal SL 2009-114. General assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moffitt, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, it seems that in recent history every four years the public water utilities, operated by the City of Asheville, occupies time in this body, this year is no different. The history, without getting into the history, but the public water system is a maldron of majority county systems combined with one county system. This goes back to the great

depression is that the time of active history says it's on his own citizens can receive a database of conversations on many occasions as the $2.00 bill house time magazine reveals a bill that was adopted was one in 2009 was the time, was requires either of the gross revenues of the water utility transfers also called your eyes to the cities, one of them on the timeless for street and sought walls connected so water line the station will review the united was the one on without one single cause any time in five years under the house and with reason of this small civilian dollars the state now it was a real soul and the time that overall, fewer promising site behind has acted on 2009 on CDs repeal of the diskette calls it, I'll CC take money from a policy of eyes and use it for other purposes below the holding of last week we lose about 30% margin was timers to tap we don't want to have the program was designed as an incremental calls assigned behalf of attendees college and was the costly recall to jurisdictional so * more on this particular bill Masson is the questions person fisher PlayStation or tiled distance in the county's recognize timely as a senior, raisins and announced an end and see that as an SL seeded scene and at least any line tiled as a seamstress are it is not acting as well, that's where we'll hands and it's the market and its suppliers and sees time SQL and Saturday as any scenario to work in the Daily News to claim are defying the Nationwide since, as far as Alan Keyes the Health Care facilities as: I'll Zine on S impasse that since he arrived at EL as long as the finest Internet inter-population is now nine season North Carolina that the time he hasn't many are at the target, Wednesdays and he is a monster in five of scott's Iran is nothing else has any interest in creating money and Sunday night at the time, just as many as the fast and happening now is just one strain on \-fire in a staff of the stains contains time, down five S everything that IC us now when you think are after issuing slices of running a supplier in the stands at five and five hits your heels and work for its will get even more extensive accidents that have a say about singing is a steel teeth into trial ends that has added a precedent-setting ?? you're hearing is not as Anthony is not among us is that why revitalized E. Lawrence Meyer is as talented as times in the U.S. and see what happened when he creates act is the together on any chance you have faith that a nasty as long as early as 1990s and on censoring action was not the time since the 19 record and CF require on offense and is not in Santa Ana as a means you're here hasn't made any sense and other thing you have one major atlases and now he's not like in $17,000,000 and asking why are inspection times and downs and what is the answer is that the ethics us honest and our internees in a wider ingredients easily and not a bad ancestors > they May 19 in the Seattle arts has even started airing of the staff was no ?? ??.........

Ance Hollamon of the North Carolina Department of State Treasurer stated to the Metropolitan Sewage Water System Committee of the LRC, the Legislative Research Commission, that the City of Asheville water system is financially sound and well-managed. The bill before you today dismantles original legislation that was passed as a partnership between city, county and state government in recognition of the need to invest in transportation infrastructure to support more than 40,000 citizens who commute into Asheville for work, school, services, and tourism. The legislators who sponsor these bills say that they want the city and county to work together to solve issues around these enterprise systems. But yet they continue to sponsor bills that further drive a wedge between the two. Asheville is not unlike any of the cities that you all come from. Your local chambers of commerce are daily strategizing on how to bring businesses, tourists, and new residences to your cities. Our cities are the economic hubs of our state and this bill servers to further cripple Asheville’s, and potentially your city’s, ability to make decisions, local decisions, that are crucial to their continued success and future viability. Please join me in showing your support for the city of Asheville and the futures of your cities, by voting no on this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wadell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moffitt, does the city of Asheville have a water and sewer reserve fund? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m not sure, Representative Wadell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The reason I ask that question is most cities and towns are able to have a water and sewer reserve fund. And we use that fund for matching grants or to do those repairs like were in that bill. And I was informed that the city of Asheville did not have a water and sewer reserve fund. Excuse me, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may yield [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe, I mean this is a public enterprise, so it is a separate subdivision of the state. So when you’re – That would be a question really for the public enterprise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passing of House Committee Substitute [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? Mr. Speaker? I’m sorry. I meant to ask for an electronic vote on these votes please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will be recorded. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee Substitute House Bill 252 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. Clerk will lock machine and record the vote. 76 having voted in the affirmative, 38 in the negative. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 252 has passed its second reading, and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. Representative Richardson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I would like to change my vote to a nay vote please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting no on the second reading please. Representative Cunningham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I need to make sure that my vote is no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be confirmed as having voted no on the second reading [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady did vote aye, the vote will be changed. Representative Richardson, , please state your purpose. Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Committee Substitute to House Bill 252 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no [SPEAKER CHANGES] No [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 252 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and Gentleman of the House, upon motion from the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale We would like to extend a birthday wish to his wife Hazel, and a congratulations to the gentleman from Craven, and to Hazel, as they

Celebrate their thirty-ninth wedding anniversary on Saturday. Congratulations. And we believe Hazel is listening. [applause] Representative Sarah Stevens is recognized to send forth committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens for judiciary subcommittee C, House bill three eighty-four, amend definitions of property classifications equal distribution. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill one twenty-three, clarify sex offender residence law. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill three eighty-five, youth accountability task force. Favorable and still referral to appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill three eighty-five will be re-referred to the committee on appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill three eighty-six, evidence and DNA expungtion laws, Favorable is the committee substitute, unfavorable is to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute bill calendar. Original bill, unfavorable, calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill three eighty-seven, amends certain criminal provisions. Favorable is to the committee substitute. Unfavorable is to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute bill calendar. Original bill unfavorable. Was it a commit, no, original bill, unfavorable, calendar. Returning to the calendar, House bill eleven. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House bill eleven. A bills been titled enact to provide that special elections may be held only on the date of primary in even numbered years on the date of the general election or on the date of the municipal general election except cases of a public health or safety emergency or for recall elections of municipal incorporations governed by local pact. General assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is the same bill we had yesterday and it passed unanimously, a hundred and seventeen to zero. I'd appreciate your support on the reading today. 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 eleven on it's third reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record please do so at this time. Representative Floyd. The clerk will out machine record the vote. One hundred and fifteen having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The House committee substitute to House bill eleven has passed it's third reading and will be sent to the Senate. House bill two forty-three. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House bill two forty-three. A bills been titled enact authorizing an owner of the self storage facility who has a lien upon personal property to deliver notice of the public sale of the property by regular and electronic mail and to publish notice in any commercially reasonable manner and to conduct the sale through an online publicly accessible auction website and to increase the late fees the self storage facility rental contracts. General assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley moves to end amendment number two on page one, lines four through five by rewriting those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. The purpose of this amendment is to ensure notice is in fact given by requiring that proof of that notice be created. And the only way I know how to do that is certified return receipt requested. Right now, the bill we have, we give people a choice of notice, but in neither case is there a proof of delivery. And a question that I would ask is, why are we even bothering? If we put in a law that requires notice, it's because we are concerned people will not notify a lien holder that their property is about to be sold. If we trust them to give notice without having any proof, why don't we just trust them to already been in contact talking about it. Most people that run self storage do so very honorably. These are not the people that whom our regulations are addressed. Quite candidly, we put in speed limits, not because of the safe drive...

…some of us who drive too fast. I want to compare and contrast two ways that properties handle. As a guy in commercial real estate I rent apartments, let’s assume I rent an apartment, I rent a self storage and they both go into default on the same day. About five days in I send a notice in both cases, you are behind on your rent, you need to send some money. Another 10 – I also send the notice to the apartment holder saying if you don’t reply in 10 days and start working on this, I will have to start in an eviction. 10 days later I go down to the Clerk of Court, I file a writ of posses, well, not, excuse me, not a writ of possession, I writ a case for – it's basically an eviction. I forget the term, it’s got an odd term, and I don’t ever use it. But basically you file for an eviction. At that point, the apartment dweller receives a letter from the Clerk of Court that a suit has been filed. The sheriff shows up an either hands them a copy of the compliant or posts it on their front door, giving them a time and a date at which small-claims court will hear my claim for rent due in the apartment. If the posting is the way that notice is given by leaving it on the door and that person does not show up for the small claims hearing, I can get no lien for money, no judgment for money, the only thing I can get is an order for possession. If they're given personal service or if they show up, I can get a judgment for money, but it doesn’t give me a lien on any of their possession. About two weeks later, if they haven’t moved out, I can come back pay another fee, have the sheriff come out, padlocked the premises if they have not left. They then have 10 days to recover their goods and I have no lien on those goods. And if they do not take them, I can donate them to a charity or I can throw them away, but I cannot sell them and apply a dime of that for the rent that’s due. And that process takes about two months. In self storage, we are about two months in, I send the notice, we really don’t know whether the notice was delivered, and in some cases, we may not even know if it’s sent, most of the time that’s not going to matter, because the person has been reaching out that entire time. But whatever notice they send, in 20 days they sell the contents and apply it to the rent, and remit the rest of the stay. What I would suggest to you is we are protecting the property of the self storage owner much better. And we are protecting the property of the apartment owner, the home owner, rent it, losing your house is probably a lot worse than losing the contents of your self storage unit. The change this makes is only one, that 60-day point, you send the letter, notified return receipt requested, yeah, it costs about 6 bucks. If it’s delivered, you get proof it was delivered, so you know, they know that you are going to sell their stuff. If it is returned as undeliverable, if it is returned as refused, if it is returned because they would not pick it up, my amendment says that counts as notice and you can go ahead and sell. I don’t believe this is an unreasonable burden. I wish ?? not necessary at all. Most of the people that will have to do this don’t need to, they are honest and honorable. If we could pass a law, that says, everybody is going to behave and be a good neighbor, we wouldn’t be doing it. It’s only the guys that don’t act right that we need to address. I ask for your support on this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I wish Ronnie Sutton was still here. For those of you who remember Ronnie Sutton, he is going to say, we're beating the dead horse, the horse is dead, leave it alone. If Representative Brawley really is adamant about this amendment, I'd tell him we could agree to disagree and let the body decide. This is more rigorous than it was currently in law. We put lots of other protections in this bill for the consumers. Currently, they can't do anything on the first day you're ??, they can't do 10 days after you're ??, they've got to wait 60 days till you're ?? before they can do anything. This amendment that Representative Murry offered yesterday…

Is an effort to trot and get the consumer, to the person who is doing it in best way possible. You can send sort of fine to last known address and guess what, most of the times these times when these people have their stuff in storage, they are moving, they are continuing to move in various locations and may not have kept you updated with an address. So we have left the option in an effort to get two more people, we have left the option to do it by e-mail, that works for lot of people because that e-mail is going to follow you wherever your computer goes and representative Mari's amendment yesterday said if we'll send it by e-mail if that's what you request you can sign off in the contract and we can do that. Representative Mari's amendment went a long way to taking care of making sure we have notice and I'd ask that you vote the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask a question to representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I remember correctly, we talked about this notice in the committee and I thought I heard you say or someone say that the post office can send assurance of notice or some type of notice without it being certified. Am I correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't think there is, there was in the previous bill before this ever came up, certified mail, and that's simply saying I did in fact put in the mail, doesn't say whether anybody got it. We have changed it to first class mail and the requirement of giving e-mail option. Now the other thing about certified return receipt requested as representative Brawley put it forth, Three point people won't pick them up. One, they work 8 to 5, they can't go to post office. They are not home when someone brings it and they don't want to be bothered and someone people know it's illegal and they don't want to deal with it. SO I think it's less likely to get to people if it's a certified return receipt request. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am not sure if you understood my question. Was there not a statement made in the committee that the post office will provide a notice that it was delivered without charge or with a lesser charge than the certified? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, there is not. There is a certified mail which simply says you did in fact put it in there addressed to this person and there is a charge for that asw ell but that does not certifies that they got it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wondered if the general lady would yield for a question, representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do, wanna talk to me? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hi Sarah. Sarah, is there anything in the law as exist or would exist after this amendment that prevents a self storage owner form using e-mail to reach out to his tenant to advice them that they are at fault and do all of the collection steps that one might take in attempt to recover your money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It would not under the existing statue before it passed the new bill. Under the existing statue it's simply to send a certified letter, If they did it by e-mail, it does not counts as attempted notice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Would the lady yield for a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would a reasonable person assume that they have already tried to reach out using any mail, an e-mail address they have in attempt to collect the money which is the ideal situation so is it not reasonable for a person to wonder if your final notice of sale is by that same method if it's not a waste of time if you have not heard for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree with you and the same thing would apply with the certified mail because they would be using exactly the same address they have been using all along with the certified mail. They'll be using the same address all along. If these people rather have their money then foreclose, it's more of a nuisance to foreclose and sell property. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would suspect in most cases. Does she yield for a third question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Under my amendment, the certified return receipt letter, if it's not picked up or refused will then count as sufficient notice and allow them to proceed having demonstrated good faith effort to reach out and prove that they did in fact make a reasonable effort, an un refutable effort I'd say to contact and prove that the person needed to contact. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I say that the first class mail or..

...email would serve the same purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the amendment sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ...does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As, as someone who stores freight for a living, 96 warehouses in 38 states and four US territories, including over 22, I counted today, 22 self-storage units. I didn't actually want to get involved in this bill but I have one clarification question and you may have just answered it. Is your amendment state, that if you send it certified mail, and it comes back unclaimed, that under your amendment, has satisfied your desi-, it doesn't have to come back as received, it just has to say it was delivered and nobody took it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It satisfies the notice requirement but I do want to correct the gentleman in what would happen. He will either get a receipt where it was delivered and accepted, he will get a statement from the post office that the addressee refused to accept delivery or he will get a notice from the post office that at least three attempts were made to deliver it and it was un-deliverable, or lastly the post office will return it and say that it is not forwardable. What it will demonstrate is that you have in fact attempted to make notice, and you will have proof that you attempted to make notice. And that's all we're trying to accomplish here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So when that process is completed, even without confirmation that, that, the, the property owner received it. It satisfied it, and then the lien holder on the self-storage unit can then dispose of the property legally. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Proceed exactly the same as they would under the bill as it now stands. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would ask that we do not vote for this amendment. My concern is that most of in, especially in North Carolina, these storage units are for, I, especially in eastern North Carolina, for our military. Most of our military, they leave that address. When you send that notice that Mr. Brawley, I'm sorry Representative Brawley has asked you to send, you're gonna get that exact response. That is not, there's not gonna be anyone there. But they can be reached on that ship or on that, in Afghanistan by email. And they can let you know that they're not gonna be back in six months but they will make sure that their spouse or someone gets you a payment. So I would ask that we do allow that, the amendment that Representative Murry put on there, for them to allow you to send them an email and make that part of the contract. That they will give you that email address. And then they're cognisant of the fact that you will be notifying them by email if you're out of country. So, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] By, by point of clarification the lady is referring to an amendment that's already passed, not the amendment before us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, I was, that, that's correct. I was asking you to vote against Representative Brawley's amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the gentle lady yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative if the self storage owner has an email address that they would use, be the only way they're required, under Representative Murry's bill, and that person is unable to receive that email, would they, how would they then receive notice? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be the way they receive notice. They would have marked on that contract, that's the way they receive notice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to ask a follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there anything in the bill of which you're aware that would prevent them from sending an email, even if my amendment passes, to that individual in service overseas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I don't think there would be anything that would prevent it. But I think that, that would be in addition to what they would be required to do. That would put another burden on them that is not required at this present time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the gentle lady yield for a third question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? young lady? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry I can't help but flirt with the cute girls. If the service members is not present, unable to take his email, but his wife is home, would she not be aware...

...that certified, return receipt requested letter and thereby receive notice on his behalf? [SPEAKER CHANGE] She would but I think on the... [SPEAKER CHANGE] The House will come to order. The lady may respond. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. I think that if he had marked on the contract, the e-mail probably would come to the home and also to him if he had the same e-mail address at home. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I rise to speak in favor of this amendment because really, if you're going to seize someone's property, as a landlord, I have a good bit of experience in this, you want to make every effort to communicate with them if you haven't had a good result in doing that. So I think this is a, for $6 to have verifiable effort in addition to what we have passed as an amendment previously, to give them the opportunity to be communicated with by e-mail or by certified mail. This is just a second manner before you take their property and sell it. That does indeed protect the storage owner, in my opinion, from all kinds of claims that they did indeed really stole their property. So I think this is a reasonable amendment and actually helps the situation rather than hurts it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth my Representative Bill Brawley for the House Committee Substitute of House Bill 243. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. Representative Hardister? The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Fifty-five having voted in the affirmative and fifty-nine in the negative, the amendment fails. Ladies and gentleman, the Chair will note that this bill is setting a new mark for the most number of days debated and on the calendar in the House. We are now back on the bill. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 243, as amended, on its third reading. All in favor say aye, all...we'll go to electronic vote to record this moment for posterity. The Clerk will open the machine. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Ninety-five having voted in the affirmative, nineteen in the negative. The House Committee Subcommittee Substitute to House Bill 243, as amended, has passed its third reading and will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. Representative Moore is recognized to send forth committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore, Chair for the Rules Calendar Operations of the House. House Resolution 363, honoring Founders Springfield's 150th, favorable as to the Committee Substitute Resolution, unfavorable as to the original resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Committee Substitute Resolution, calendar. Original resolution, unfavorable, calendar. Representative Tim Moore is recognized to send forth committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore for Rules Calendar Operations of the House. House Resolution honoring the North Carolina Extension and Community Association Incorporated on the 100th Anniversary of its Founding, favorable for introduction. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The resolution will be filed. Representative Tim Moore is recognized to send forth committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Moore, Chairman for the Rules Calendar Operations of the House, House Joint Resolution 190, Honor Ruth Graham. Favorable as to the Committee Substitute, Resolution unfavorable as to the original Joint...

Tiled ?? ?? resolution may substitute resolution down a result of a resolution and table down ?? house built on partly as bill to lead of the bottle of a command of the restrictions applicable to be in also times when the agency and the default and what's the protracted debate whether he could last up to $1.00 and the certain locations Johnson of overlapping acts person of a civilization purpose riled today. The UW recognize a Commissioner Mario brothers his new role as a strong and lifetime of-breed in such session of having the ?? the issues, via altar of smaller and is transported from a storage facility Baca, the show to discuss a connection with rice are far from home in time to be built to pay for the changes, else run in the legislation would organize from others were, in French-born actor time the deal faster and faster, and the quality of its opposition Arkansas and content roll up from this legislation and their trial and get back to the questions for shrinkage or person applying the PlayStation purpose should know that does recognize made no difference prevent the loss of seven times the mass of college students and mark procession president ?? not a question for the house's passage house built on a second reading alderman the whole present time ?? ?? was important when hundreds in the current 14 times was no one is presently have used the Rev. Johnson of over one is as important a question for the houses time has built on is the real dinners at all president us at house built autos pass the reading will be sent to the sun house bill two before the partly deceptive the house built to fit time a building, activating the requirements related to notice a plan is played in solving changes in the day of the ability of a spontaneous or CDs year and a parent's Johnson of all products for timeline for PlayStation purpose of the data as the speaker eight some of times and all pages a year, this is a bill sponsored by a receptionist for peace and some members of the size of his request some of actually, the Rowlands is the role of the regional land use committee part of a final charities are history sauce request, from the Dept of Defense wants on the hand that while some fruit, judiciary of an assembly of its ability to put in place to assist and played by those races of the close of the year in the past because of Singletary days time of event that the plan suggests a litigation, we build a house base to having your pager subdivision corner of last winter's and increase of more than 50% existence of the deposit base so the basis of a comment about whether the action system with the military's and over sometimes , this is a native DS request is bill unanimously passed one is the time has passed the whole history military veterans affairs committee the other two things and briefly as the use of technical changes allows a dozen of these painters designees of these men are and five times request to halt dollars and 90 control request he provides a 30 day conference the military are smart enough to certify that was busy way his opposition to the 18th street person on display station per ?? is the right to appeal because recognize made no page is the current this the whole 4000 of whom AG industry time audios and finally sell the shares the bill on??..................

All plans that potentially may or may not be adverse to the practices that are going on debate with ?? communication. I urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a very good bill and I would respectfully ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, speak on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On behalf of Moore county, which is lined with Fort Bragg, we’ve had some concerns and the town of Southern Pines, Pinehurst, Aberdeen, they all are in favor of this bill and I think it’s good, support 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 254 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House Committee Substitute to House Bill 254 has passed its second reading and without objection. It 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 254 on its third reading. All those in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 254 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 392 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Bill 392. A bill to be entitled, an act requiring a county Department of Social Services to conduct a criminal check on applicants for or recipients of temporary assistance to needy families. Benefits food and nutrition services benefits. To require DSS to share information with the local law enforcement agency regarding an applicant for a recipient of ?? benefits who has an outstanding arrest warrant and to deny ?? benefits to an applicant or recipient subject to an outstanding warrant for a felony or for probation or for parole violation. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, the purpose of this House Bill 392 is two-fold. It’s to prevent fugitive, felons and probation and parole violators from receiving financial assistance in accordance with federal law. It’s to make sure that financial law goes to law-abiding citizens first. Number 2, if information of an outstanding warrant is received by DSS< then DSS shall as immediately as practicable but within 72 hours after receiving that information, notify a local law enforcement agency. This bill makes a public policy statement. That all state agencies to work with law enforcement to keep the public safe. And that any public assistance should first go to law-abiding citizens. I think a little bit of background is in order to understand how this bill came about. 2011 a caseworker’s job was reportedly jeopardized and the county department of social services worker was put on an action plan by the state after the case worker notified a deputy sheriff working in the agency that a person seeking public assistance benefits had an outstanding arrest warrant. The deputy promptly arrest the convicted felon. A few weeks earlier, a similar situation had occurred and the person was arrested. The state, then contacted county officials and said if an outstanding arrest warrant is noted, a local caseworker cannot act on that information. The state and DSS went on to say that the county agency should not have accessed that information and should not have shared that information with the local law enforcement officers and that they are not duty bound to report that information to law enforcement officers. Now let me tell you about the person seeking aid. This person was a convicted felon. This person was from out of state. This person was convicted of an aggravated robbery with a weapons charge. I think the victim was pistol whipped. This person than came to North.

North Carolina, was arrested again on a drug charge. This person was then a parole violator and an outstanding arrest warrant was issued for this person. The caseworker did the right thing in reporting this and for that her job was in jeopardy. Ladies and gentleman this has happened to our county and it’s happening to your county as well. I think a little bit about the federal law is in order as well. Federal law under specifically 42USC 601A9 refers to block grants for temporary assistance to needy families. Under section 9 it’s titled, Denial of Assistance for Fugitive Felons and Parole and Probation Violators. It specifically states that a State to which a grant is made, shall not use any part of that grant to provide assistance to individuals who are basically fleeing felons and paroled and probation violators. It goes on to say that if a state enacts safeguards against public information, that those safeguards cannot prevent that information from being shared with local law enforcement officers. This aid is commonly called TANF. The other one is Food and Nutrition Supplements, which specifically states that individuals fleeing to avoid prosecution and custody shall not receive any benefits under this law. With that seven other states have enacted similar provisions regarding this and with that I commend the Bill to you. [Speaker change]: Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [Representative Brandon]: To ask a question and then speak on the Bill, to the Bill sponsor. [Speaker change]: Representative ??, does the gentleman yield? [Representative ??]: Yes I would. [Speaker change]: Gentleman yields. [Representative Brandon]: Thank you Representative. I thought that we did this Bill last year. Can you tell me the difference between Representative Sane’s Bill and this Bill, because it seems like we already addressed similar issues? [Representative ??]: I wasn’t here last year. This is my Bill. [Representative Brandon]: Is it okay if I ask Representative Sane is he knows ?? ? [Speaker change]: Representative Sane, does the gentleman yield? [Representative Sane]: I do. [Speaker change]: Gentleman yields. [Representative Sane]: To answer your question Representative, that Bill had to deal more with absconders who were currently absconding from parole where the parole officer would initiate whether or not they could receive benefits or not. That would be the fine line of this. This Bill deals with more on that side of things. But that was initiated on side of the parole officer, who would initiate whether or not the person was absconding or not. [Representative Brandon]: Speak on the Bill. [Speaker changes]: The gentleman’s recognized to debate the Bill. [Representative Brandon]: I think that’s a major difference between the Bill, because we have to be very careful when we talk about what fleeing is. When we have fleeing, sometimes that’s a parent that hasn’t found a job because they are an ex-felon and they can’t get a job and they cannot pay their child support. That is considered fleeing. Then we’re going to say, oh, by the way, you can’t get a job. Now you can’t go to school with financial aid and now you can’t get assistance for housing. So folks we just have to be very careful in what you’re talking about these type of situations because you keep taking the feet out from underneath people and the only thing that you do is drive them right back into crime. It’s not making anything safer. Not one iota. What I say is, people are always going to eat. You’re going to eat, and I’m going to eat and ex-offenders and ex-felons, they’re going to eat. They’re going to eat the right way or the way they have to. If you force them to eat in a way that is illegal, that’s the way they’re going to do it. If you take away the assistance, if you take away the ability to go to school and get trained, you take away the ability for them to have a house or to live then you will… [Speaker change]: Mr. Speaker? [Speaker change]: Representative Art, please state your purpose. [Representative Art]: I’m asking if Representative Brandon would yield for a question? [Speaker change]: Does the gentleman yield for a question? [Representative Brandon]: Absolutely. [Speaker change]: Gentleman yields. [Representative Art]: Representative Brandon, are you referring to previously convicted felons or are you referring to this Bill addresses fleeing felons that are currently under prosecution, not a past convicted felon. This Bill addresses the ability of a current absconder from justice. Is that what you’re referring to? [Representative Brandon]: Yes. That’s what I’m referring to because in this Bill, the last Bill that we did, we had a probation officer who has been working with that client that could be very clear to determine whether that

is actually fleeing or not. Here we have an abstract way of thinking about what fleeing is. And I'm just saying, we have to be careful of what we consider what fleeing is. Does that mean that you have a court date that you didn't go to,or you have violated parole because you have not been able to pay for child support, there's all types of reasons for every story you gave in your eloquent speech.I can name you 500 stories where people are not fleeing. But what would be considered fleeing according to this bill? And so what I'm saying is last year with representatives saying we worked on that bill, the parole officer had alot more understanding and control about what was actually fleeing, and I would like to see something in this bill and I will legit to third to see if that is something that we can do, because I think we really have to be careful to abstractly say,'somebody's fleeing', because there's tons of people out there who aren't' really fleeing, just doesn't have the resources they need to complete their case. And this leaves that wide open, so that's just my point. [speaker changes] Representative Fisher, please state your purpose [speaker changes] To ask that those bills be funded [speaker change] Representative Arp this gentleman you? [speaker change] yes I do [speaker change] Gentleman you [speaker change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Arp, I'm just wondering if you have looked into what the cost of this bill might in terms of criminal background checks that the state would have to do, or the cost to the counties to do this. [speaker change] yes [speaker change] Follow up? [speaker change] Is Gentleman yield for a follow up? [speaker changes] yes [speaker changes] gentleman yields [speaker changes] Representative Arp, do you have a fiscal note for this bill? [speaker changes] The.. We don't have a fiscal note but there's no cost to the state. There will be cost associated with that. I would say that the background checks are used very commonly. For instance, in order to purchase a gun, those background checks, they are born by the applicant. In this case, the background check is born by the government. I think we actually have public and overwhelming support of the public, to any minimal cost of the applicant to assure that the right people receive this public assistance. I think we owe it to our teachers, in this time of economic crisis, I think we owe it to every law abiding citizen and family. There is truly a need. I don't think we can look them in the eye and say we just don't have enough money for you, because we don't think it is worthy enough for us to do our due diligence and ensure that criminals are not receiving the funds. [speaker changes] Mr. Speaker, follow up [speaker changes] Does the gentleman yield? [speaker changes] Yes [speaker changes] Gentleman yields [speaker changes] You said you had looked into the cost. Do you know what the cost would be to the counties? [speaker changes] I think whats.. here's the problem with that. The information is not known on how may people are under this because they just simply ask the person, are you an convicted felon or not, and there's this check off box on the application. So the credit that would be made is not known, so there's no cost to the state, and there would be cost to the locals. [speaker changes] Do you know what the cost would be to the county? [speaker changes] It's inconclusive. [speaker changes] I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker, I apologize. A follow up. [speaker changes] The chair has stepped away from the dais. Does the gentleman yield to a follow up? [speaker changes] Yes [speaker changes] Gentleman yields. [speaker changes] And, so do you have a figure for the cost to the counties? [speaker changes] I don't have a definitive figure, no. [speaker changes] Mr. Speaker, to speak just briefly on the bill. [speaker changes] Lady is recognized to debate the bill. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, while I respect the members prerogative in terms of coming forward with this legislation, I cannot support the bill as currently written, because for one thing, we don't know how much it will cost. We already see that it will be some sort of unfunded mandate to the counties, and at the very least, it should probably go back to the drawing board for a little bit more study before it comes to the floor for a vote, and I would appreciate your no vote on this bill. Thank you. [speaker changes] Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [speaker changes] Speak on the bill [speaker changes] Gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I also would hope that members would

ask this bill be returned for at least information purposes. I appreciate Representative Arp’s concern about people receiving benefits that shouldn’t receive them, and obviously we have that problem across all benefits we provide through state government. Seems to be on this particular bill though a lack of information. Seems to be apparently results from an incident that happened. I don’t know how many applications for assistance are filled our per month in North Carolina per year, etcetera, but we have a bill that according to Representative Arp’s statement came from one incident that happened. Certainly thousands people apply at least on an annual basis for assistance, and so for us to presume that there is a problem here that would justify the cost that we would have to incur and push down onto these local governments, especially the counties, seems like a large price we would ask them to pay without knowing whether or not it would solve the problem necessarily, and knowing whether or not we even have a problem to solve. Certainly at the end of the day we’ll create a high number of background checks being instituted, and I would also say at the present time I would presume that anyone who applies and answers and says they are not a felon, that that would be a false official statement that would be punishable by law already if they received the benefits and it was later discovered that they were a felon, and so it would be an embezzlement of those benefits, and so I would ask that you not support this bill. Let’s send it back, find out what the real cost is. Let’s not penalize our local governments and our local DSS departments for a problem that does not exist. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, I’m looking at this bill, and it says if an applicant, or an applicant or of a recipient, you’re talking about a check reveals that a warrant has been issued for the arrest of the applicant or recipient for commission of a felony or a misdemeanor, and the word concerning me here is the word “misdemeanor” being used in here. Are you telling me that a person who has an arrest warrant out for a misdemeanor could be denied benefits or could have his benefits denied under this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. The rest of the bill, if you read onto the rest of the bill, it says that the only benefits denied are to fleeing felons and parole and probation violators. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well then I’m assuming then that the reason you’ve got “misdemeanors” is if there is an outstanding warrant for a misdemeanor, that person is free to report that to existing law enforcement officers? Am I correct on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe you’re correct. I think the idea is that information sharing from law enforcement officers and DSS, this is to facilitate that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One question further. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So if there’s an arrest warrant out for a speeding violation, that information would have to be shared with law enforcement? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you have an arrest warrant, yes. If you have an arrest warrant for a speeding ticket, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will yield all day. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will yield all day. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, does this bill apply to the people who are currently receiving these benefits, or only to new applicants? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s a good question. There was some confusion about this. This bill becomes effective when passed, and what it does is apply to recipients. It first applies to applicants in the process, and then it applies to applicants who reapply or concurrently, only when they reapply for benefits. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We discussed this bill in Health

The human services standing committee, yesterday. There was quite a discussion on the impact on counties. We each live in counties that comb and represent our county governments too. These background checks cost about $38 each. There are currently about 122 families that are enrolled in food stamps. One hundred twenty two thousand people who are enrolled in food stamps. These people have to apply every year. This is gonna be a significant drain on our county's government budgets and I'm surprised that we haven't had more feedback from your local county DSS directors on this bill so far. We are doing committee work, right here on the floor. This bill needed to stay in committee another day in order to get some of these issues worked out. Can the counties use TANF money to pay for this, or does it have to come from new appropriation, or does it have to come from their general fund? Where will they get the money to pay for this and actually what is the impact on our counties? We don't know this and I would request that this bill get sent back to committee to have another day of work on it. If we vote on it today you should certainly vote no on this. This is not, we are not representing our county governments, are elected officials, and our counties by putting this burden on them, or the people who live in those counties who might have to pay additional taxes to cover this cost. So, either send the bill back to committee or please vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I stand reluctantly but the more I read, less reluctantly. In opposition, on second reading I hope that some questions can get answered on third reading tomorrow. But let me explain, I don't disagree with part of the policy because I've run before a number of record check bills and believe in the general principal of that but I think we have to be really clear what's happening here. If you look on the second page, line 16, what we're saying is for hundreds of thousands of applicants a year for the program involved on the county level, the county department of social services shall ensure that the state and national criminal history of an applicant or... Where's my computer? ... that it's fully constitutional based on some stuff I read last week but I'm gonna to check on that tonight, I just didn't know it was coming up. But if you get past that, my objection is we are gonna be spending, in my view, it's got to be millions of dollar a year to do this and I'm not sure that that cost is worth the benefit. There's got to be a way to restrict this and limit it and certainly to provide if we're gonna require assistance for the county social services, my request would be that the bill get re-referred to a J-committee to be refined, or at least if that we hold it, if representative Arp is willing, because I think there's some really legitimate questions being raised, not about the policy, but about the implementation and the cost. So if we have to vote today, I will vote no and object to third. I would hope that we would hold it though and answer those questions. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Baskerville please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill came up in committee yesterday and we had a very interesting debate on it.

I just want to make a couple points about the substance and a couple points about the procedure. First, substantively... I agree with Representative Arp that we need to make sure that the folks who are getting benefits are the folks who are properly and rightfully entitled to receive benefits and that folks are ineligible that get benefits should not receive those benefits. The federal law states that folks that have been fleeing prosecution, evading arrest, are ineligible to receive these types of benefits. But this particular bill says folks that have outstanding warrants for arrest. This particular bill also applies to outstanding warrants for arrest for misdemeanors as well as felonies, when the federal law only makes folks ineligible if they are fleeing prosecution for felony offenses. So this is different from the federal rules and regulations which Representative Arp said we were trying to come into compliance with with this bill. Additionally, there is a big difference between folks that are trying to flee arrest or flee prosecution from folks that have an outstanding warrant for arrest. There's a very thin burden required for someone to get a warrant for arrest issued for them. That is a much lower burden than being able to say someone is an absconder, which I think they referenced in an earlier bill, that's a much higher burden than just someone having a warrant for arrest issued out on you. I could go to Mecklenburg County, I'm from Vance County, I can go Mecklenburg County and say that somebody down there in Mecklenburg County, if I know their name and their address, stole a phone from me, I can go to the magistrate's office, get a warrant for that person's address if I know their name and I know their address, and there will be an outstanding warrant for that person's arrest. That person lives in Vance County. They're not fleeing arrest. They just don't know that there's a warrant out there for them. They're not absconding. There's no notice requirement, we've been talking a whole lot about notice requirements. There is no notice requirement that somebody be put on notice that there's an outstanding warrant for their arrest. So just because someone has an outstanding warrant for their arrest does not mean that they're fleeing prosecution, that they're absconding, which is the basis for the denial of benefits under federal law. Additionally, this bill does not save us money. It costs us money. If someone is ineligible because of their background, they're ineligible, regardless of whether we require the DSS to transfer that information over to the police department, regardless if we have someone there doing these background checks on them every single time, they're ineligible. We're not saving any money. In fact, it's going to cost us money, you've heard that alluded to during the debate, the fiscal memo is inconclusive. It's going to cost us a whole lot of money to do this. Just briefly on the procedure, we had this bill come up in committee yesterday, and it was like I said, we had a very good debate. It was added on to the calendar yesterday late for first reading. And now it's up for second and third reading today. Not a whole lot of time for folks to be able to really review this stuff and try to understand it. I think that there is a way that we can accomplish what Representative Arp wants to do, I completely agree, our agencies ought to be able to communicate with each other. Our agencies ought to be able to work together so that one knows what's going on with the other agencies. I don't necessarily think that this is the best way to do that. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To pull a bill on calendar for tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pull the bill, remove it, the calendar for consideration today and to recalendar for tomorrow? Without objection? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wonder if the gentleman would consider Tuesday instead of tomorrow. Even though we have all the lights on that we do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does yield and the gentleman yielded to the question.

and- run lead on Chyron's Mueller arthritis and Ryan O'Neal and are awaiting president has gained him the war and elections committee and house entered by the dry-finance committee sent to the platelets of the mission Viejo elevator of the substitute resolved on Federal Power and a shaken ?? is in our play station purpose across the aisle it does recognize the doors 345 bills so often hostile 317 short, this fishing for Showtime have a good movie removed from the committee on corporations, resisting site for an asp 41-seller, may continue their fathers are harsher just one time has the same issues that if you are the issues ever since being dimes and solar as most users to the measure, state treasurer of state street research changes times in the near-chaos as for the communal student section solar ice does anyone say the bill filing deadline for local bills we had a city committee three times and made your of Scherer all mapped section instead of the following areas in, 30 Jan imposing time Allstate, are seeded and 2530% 0.31 was but one ?? person randy sheriff's station like to change a rental house joint resolution 0.1 is that the state and Thomas is Jason onto to buy him a while you more time in the house and position 0.1 IC is in person steering times and purposes China is a scene out here concede some of the ?? is a common 101189 we will only one session, we have no lights and 99, and riled up an entrance to one side and presenting the only comment is afraid, many we remain on Fuhrman's Martin committee of the incidents on tiled of ordinance one of the idea that we like the recession, 730 devastated, some of the deal commitment ?? has announced its person appears PlayStation purpose as the fun time done for has renounced the A's the backups that he and five of the user own of them is the BackOffice unit, as the person can't play station purpose were dozens of recognize time speaker of the legislator has no means an already warning and 7:30 AM every 440 ??'s and a PlayStation purpose by U.S. activity on the major has renounced of making the ice activity will be a very important here is common in Iraq: im said lottery, 44 and one PlayStation purpose-does recognize the damage the only smart and 643 Sorensen, the insurer ?? president's personal or Estes ?? ?? ?? that should ?? ?? …………………………………………..

Mr speaker I'm going to leave the house do now adjured and subject to re referral bills and resolutions to re connive on Thursday April the 4th 2013 at 1pm Representative more moves 2nd by Representative bell brolly and the house now re adjured to reconvene on Thursday April 4th at 1pm all those in favor say I all oppose say no the eyes have it the house stays adjourned