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.

Senate | May 22, 2014 | Chamber | Senate Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The Senate will come to order. The Sargent at Arms will close the doors. Members will go to their seats. Members and guests of the gallery will please silence all electronic devices. Leading the Senate today in prayer is Senator Don Davis of Green County. All members and guests in the gallery will please stand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My friends, let us pray. Oh, Lord, as we gather today, servants of a great state, make your wisdom known to us. ?? our hearts, our minds, and our souls, realizing that a house divided against itself cannot stand. Now bless the members of this Senate family and every citizen of our state. As we’ve expressed our deep appreciation for our military throughout this week, we ask a special prayer. Bless those who serve and their families from sea to shining sea. God bless America. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Pate is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Mr. President, the Journal of Wednesday, May 21st, 2014 has been examined and has found to be correct. I move that the Senate dispense with the reading of the Journal and that it stand approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, the Journal for May 21st, 2014 stands approved as written. Members’ leaves of absence are granted for Senators Hartsell, Harmon, and Soucek today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, our nurse of the day is in the chamber, Michelle Voytech of Raleigh, North Carolina. Ms. Voytech, thank you so much for serving the Senate today. And members, we have a full gallery today and there are a number of courtesies, and if you’ll just hold your applause for any of these folks at the present time. On the motion of Senator Pate of Wayne and Senator Davis of Green County, the Chair is happy to extend courtesies to the Brain Injury Association of North Carolina. They represent four homes in North Carolina. Renew Life, which is in Goldsboro, Gateway Clubhouse, which is in Raleigh, Learning Services in Creedmoor, Durham, and Raleigh, and Hinds’ Feet Farm in Huntersville and Asheville. If you’re present, you could, if you could please stand. Thank you for being here today. Members, on the motion of Senator Jim Davis of Macon County, the Chair’s happy to extend courtesies to Krista Hollingsed of Canton, North Carolina. Krista’s the daughter of the Chief of Police, Bill Hollingsed, of Waynesville, North Carolina. Krista, if you’re in the gallery, if you’d please stand. And upon the motion of Senator Tamara Barringer of Wake County, Chair’s happy to extend courtesies to the volunteers of the American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network. These individuals are from across the state of North Carolina and are visiting their local state senator for Lobby Day. Members of the American Cancer Society, Cancer Action Network, if you’d please stand. And upon the motion, [applause] and upon the motion of Senator Norm Sanderson of Carteret, Craven, and Pamlico County, the Chair’s happy to extend courtesies to Mr. Keith Hundley, formerly of Weyerhaeuser Corporation, and the teachers and students from the eighth through the eleventh grade of New Bern Christian Academy from New Bern, North Carolina. If you’re in the gallery, please stand. [Applause] And upon the motion of Senator Mike Woodard of Durham County, the Chair’s happy to extend courtesies to the students from Southern High School in Durham, North Carolina, and their teacher, Mr.

Jake Seltzer. Mister Seltzer, if you and your students are here, if you’d please stand back there. And upon the motion of Senator Joel Ford of Mecklenburg County, the Chair is happy to extend courtesies to the Greater Charlotte Apartment Association in the gallery today. Charlotte Apartment Association, thank you for being here. And they are a part of a larger group that is here. The Chair is happy to extend courtesies to the North Carolina Apartment Association, where over 300 members had signed up to come to Raleigh today to see their Senate in action. If you’re with the North Carolina Apartment Association, please stand. Are there any reports of standing committees? Members, we’re going to go ahead and move onto the calendar. Third reading roll call, Senate Bill 786. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] SB 786, Energy Modernization Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules be suspended ?? Senator Rucho can have staff on the floor with him. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mister President and members of the Senate. We had a very informative and vigorous discussion yesterday and brought forth a lot of information, and Mister President, I’ve explained it as much as I can. I would urge that the members of the Senate support this effort as we move closer to energy independence for North Carolina for economic growth and job creation, and that is part of what this bill does, and it is one tool in the quiver that we are making North Carolina the primary economy in the entire country, and that is our goal. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jenkins, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] After the lengthy debate yesterday, I did go back and read all the rules and everything from front to back. Came across one little issue that I hope will be received as a friendly amendment, and it had to do with the disclosure of what was actually in the fracking fluids. And this amendment, which is on the dashboard I believe, very quickly says that the state - [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jenkins, let’s have the Clerk read. If you’re offering an amendment, let the Clerk read it in. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jenkins moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister President. What this amendment does is simply state that the state geologist or his designee, or their designee, will review the confidential information provided about the fracking fluids, and what they will do is compare them to the state and federal lists of banned chemicals, and if they find one that is either on the state or federal list of banned chemicals, they are to report it within five days to the Mining Commission. That’s what it does; I’d be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay members, the amendment is before you. Any further discussion or debate? Senator Rucho? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President, to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jenkins, it would have been great if I could have spent more time with you reading these 103 pages along with the bill, but thank you for finding the time to read it all. Mister President, we accept this as a good amendment and we would hope that the members of the Senate will support this in addition to what we already have in the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on the amendment? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the adoption of Amendment 6 to SB 786. All in favor will vote “Aye”, all opposed will vote “No”. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the Clerk will record the vote. 47 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, Amendment 6 passes and the bill…

What is back before you. Is there any further discussion or debate on SB 786? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To offer an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth your amendment, clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s on the dashboard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, this Bill is a long(??) as it was offered yesterday that we need to consider a minimum bonding amount for drilling for this propane gas. This amendment stipulates that one million dollar bond will be posted when these wells are drilled. As I mentioned yesterday also, I built, developed multi-family housing in the Southeast from Savannah to Richmond over the last 30 years and I wouldn’t consider hiring a general contractor without some kind of bonding requirement to require a specific performance as well as if anything went wrong, he had the financial wherewithal to fix it. That’s all this amendment does, to make sure the drillers have the financial wherewithal to fix any problem that occurs. You know whether it’s damage on the ground, or damage underground. The bonding company charges a premium of one to three percent so a million dollars if you are a well-qualified driller would be in the ten thousand dollar range. That’s pretty much peanuts in the grand scheme of things. But the bonding company will actually do some of your due diligence for you. The bonding companies typically require you be in business for two years, that you have an active liability insurance policy, indemnification of the owners is required. In other words, the owners are going to have some liability. They can’t just offer up a shell. The owners are going to be responsible. I basically think if they can’t provide this sort of bond then they really shouldn’t have that kind of responsibility to do the drilling. I would be happy to answer any questions. I appreciate your support. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Duke, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you Senator Hunt for your amendment. Colleagues, Senator Hunt has been very involved and very concerned all through the process to make sure that the state of North Carolina had adequate bonding of these operations. He’s been involved with Senator Richard and Senator Brock and myself, Dr. Warren and others, in discussion. In the last Bill that we had, there was plenty of discussions about the bonding and I think this is a good amendment that further tightens up where the minimum would be for the bonding that’s required. So I would encourage my colleagues to vote for this amendment. I think it makes sense and I thank you Senator Hunt for working with us to continue to strengthen this Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, do ask Senator Hunt a question on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt, do ye yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Reluctantly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Senator I love your amendment. I just have a question or two. My dashboard quit on me this morning but I wanted to ask you, I didn’t catch the maximum amount of the bond or what the high end of the bonding requirement would be in dollars and who’s going to check out the capacity and the integrity of the bonding companies. If you could answer those for me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. The minimum bonding amount is a million dollars. The maximum amount of the bonding, of the bond would be established by the mining commission or their predecessor, whoever that might be. And the bonding company, they are evaluated by our insurance department so they are not licensed, they should not be licensed to do business in North Carolina unless they have sufficient license capacity to offer the bond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. Over here. Over here, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, sorry. There is a light that is supposed to light up but I can’t see it, so Senator Barringer, report the purpose of your rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I give this amendment full support. I have been a girl scout for 45 years. I am a mother of three children in Wade County, close to Jordan Lake. This is a good Bill, excuse me, a good amendment and I urge your support. I thank you for bringing it to our attention Senator Hunt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the Bill’s final

Is this a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill sponsor, Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, I in- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold on just a second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sIr, I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to get clear about the coverage of the bonding requirement and I, perhaps, also should ask Senator Hunt a question because, like Senator Tillman, my dashboard was slow getting everything going this morning. But my understanding is the bonding requirement only covers the site issues where the well, closing the well, where the well is dug and also putting the site back in it's current state but it doesn't include damage to adjoining properties or environmental damages, anything like that. So could you review with me what this bonding requirement, though I support the amendment, is gonna cover? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I would ask if Senator Newton would respond to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, hold on just a second. Senator Bryant is it okay to direct your question to Senator Newton? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you Senator Bryant. In the last bill that, 820, we, in a major way, addressed all the bonding requirements for these operations. There's a bonding requirement for the surface owner, there's a bonding requirement for the state as it relates to any environmental aspects, and there's a bonding requirement to make sure that the operator has the financial ability to finish the project. What Senator Hunt's amendment does is set the minimum floor of a minimum bonding requirement. The bonding will be determined by the NEC as far as whatever the needs is, the size of the project and so forth. So the bond could be much, much higher than a million dollars and what the amendment does is just set the minimum floor of a million dollars. So, as far as what these other aspects that you're talking about, if there was some sort of contamination or something like that, I don't believe this amendment addresses that, I'd have to check with staff for sure, but it is covered in the previous law that that bonding is required. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, follow-up. For the other areas- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the other areas, such as the contamination, the adjoining property, those other areas, is that minimum that $10,000 number or what? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, we're talking about legislation from last session so I'm gonna have to, you're gonna have to give me a moment. If you wouldn't mind, and maybe for the procedures on the floor, if you wouldn't mind letting me come back and answer your question in a second to be more specific about it, but that bond is there from 820. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, just, may I make a comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, I would just, I support the amendment, I would just, and I was, like others, was, I'm having a little bit of trouble juggling everything technologically to get all the information. Since the amendment is on the floor I think it would be important for us, as a body, to just understand the complete picture with the bonding even as we are making this good improvement with Senator Hunt's amendment, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Bryant, and the Chair does understand the challenges of technology. Is there further discussion or debate? Hearing none- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, yes, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's to ask Senator Hunt a question, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President, and my question is directly along the lines of Senator Bryant. I'm looking at where the bonding requirement is put into the bill and it's in the Reclamation of Surface Property Required provision, and the bond runs to the state, and my question to you is, once we resolve this issue among Staff Senator Newton and Senator Bryant, would you be open to having the bond also run to anyone harmed and known to be harmed or shown to be harmed by the process. Because what I worry about is that a neighbor would have to bring in action themselves and sure in tort and it would be much better for everybody involved if that neighbor, if they can clearly show they were harmed by the well drilling, to just claim against the bond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The intention of the bond was to protect the state against any kind of damage, whether it was highway damage, environmental damage, so that Diener didn't have to go in there and clean it up. I really hadn't thought about applying the damage to neighbors. It was really to protect the state if the driller did environmental damage.

For example, the state would not be required to go clean up or if they did, they would get reimbursed for it by the insurance company. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I absolutely support the amendment for purposes that Senator Hunt just spoke to, but I think that it would be wise for us to consider whether we should expand it so that the bonding minimum also runs to anyone who is harmed by the fracking process. We know that there are provisions in there that deal with the landowner him or herself, on site reclamation, and well closing, but I think we need to look out for people who can clearly be shown to have been harmed as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. Senator Newton, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. To speak for the second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t know that you spoke a first time on the amendment, you responded to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may, Mr. President, I did encourage the members to vote for the amendment. I believe I was the first one to speak after Senator Hunt. But [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Senator Stein, and I appreciate that we want to keep order here. I want to put Senator Stein’s mind at ease. We’ve already addressed all this in 820. The operators are already fully responsible for any possible contamination or problem they may have off-site on a joining property owners. The bonding requirements are already there. And I appreciate your concern, these are very valid concerns that why we already addressed them in 820. Let’s keep this simple as far as the amendment. This amendment just established the minimum bonding amount for the surface owners as it relates to his bill. So I’d be happy to sit down with staff with you, Senator Stein, to make sure you are comfortable that is has already been addressed in previous legislation. Because there is nothing wrong with what you are saying. We’ve just, we’ve already done it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, just one moment, because I want to get something clear. I would encourage the members to look at rule 14A of you rules. The rules basically say that no member should speak more than one time on an amendment. And so we have not here been enforcing that rule, and it looks like we’re not enforcing it today, but we need to make sure that if we’re going to have rules, we need to follow them. Okay? Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator Newton will yield for questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be within the rules [LAUGH]. Senator Newton, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I can work within the rules, yes I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. So tell me what H1E does in terms of the bonding requirement. Clearly it establishes liability, if you harm somebody in the neighboring property. But is the bond adequate. What is the bond as it applies to somebody damaged by fracking on a neighboring property? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, if I may, I just want to repeat your question so I’m answering specifically. You want to know what the bonding requirement is if there is any damage to a joining property owner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Precisely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Give me just a moment, and I’ll make sure I give a clear answer with that. That we’re clear. We’re going over old legislation. Hold on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] While Senator Newton is conferring with staff members, the doctor of the day is now in Chamber. Dr. John Ebert, of Charlotte, North Carolina. Dr. Ebert, thank you so much for being here today. [CLAPPING] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton is recognized to respond to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you, Senator Stein. And Staff is going to pull the section up so I can read it to the members. This is all covered under the financial responsibility bonding requirements of 820 that would reach out and

… mandate that they have adequate financial ability and the bonding requirement for all of those damages that might occur offsite, and if I may be permitted to sit, it might be easier. I’ll just read it. And this is Subsection L and it says, let’s see… “Proper well-closure site reclamation, post-closure monitoring and financial assurance. Rules for financial assurance shall require that an oil or gas developer or operator establish financial assurance that will ensure that sufficient funds are available for well-closure, post-closure maintenance, monitoring and any corrective action that the department may require, and to satisfy any potential liability for sudden and non-sudden accidental occurrences, and subsequent costs incurred by the department in response to an incident involving a drilling operation, even if the developer or operator becomes insolvent or ceases to reside, be incorporated, do business or maintain assets in the state.” So I apologize to members for being that technical. We did have to go back to the old bill to do that because we waded into it again a little bit with this bill, but as it relates to Senator Hunt’s amendment and your questions, we’ve got it covered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] to see if senator Newton will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I heard you to say is that they just have to have financial assurance, which is not the same thing as a bonding requirement as it relates to damage on other property, and so my question to you is would you all be open to an amendment akin to Senator Hunt’s that protects the state, that would have them have a bond as it protects anyone who’s harmed – a neighbor who’s harmed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Stein. The requirement is it could be a bond or other financial mechanism to ensure that they have the adequate financial reserves even if they go insolvent or bankrupt. The MEC has already addressed these issues and continues to do so, and quite honestly, I think at this time it would be imprudent and may complicate and actually make it worse to try and wade back into this in this way on the floor at this time. I just, I would not be amenable to an amendment in that regard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on Amendment 7? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I had a question for Senator Newton or Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well pick one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Newton, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And this is in follow-up to the previous question I was asking which sort of started this line of discussion, and just to help clarify for me and the members, can you share with us what the draft rules are providing by the MEC for the minimum bonds for site reclamation, well-closure and adjoining properties, which might just make the whole thing simpler? And I’m sorry I wasn’t more direct initially. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Bryant. I can’t. We’re talking about 103 pages of rules that are online that you’re very welcome to go read. They’re out there for public comment right now. I’ve been satisfied from what I’ve read that they are not just adequate but are overly, in a good way, cautious to make sure that we’re doing that, and I would note that these are the same rules that we’re talking about for bonding or financial assurance – the same rules that we apply to hazardous waste sighting and so forth. I mean it’s identical requirements. If it’s good enough for hazardous waste sighting, I would suggest to you that it should be good enough for our natural gas operators. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more follow-up, Mister President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have not read all 103 pages but would I be in the right ballpark if it’s the case that the rates are in the range of 5,000 dollars for a one foot well or some range of that nature? I was just concerned about that small amount. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Senator. That’s a drilling bond; that’s not a reclamation bond. It would take some time to try and drill into this, pardon the pun, and find it, but the MEC standards are going to be much different than that. That’s simply a drilling bond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on Amendment 7?

Speaker:Hearing on questions for the senators the passage of ?? seven percentage bill 786 all in favor will vote all off course you all know and so five seconds will be allowed for voting ?? ,47 have voted in the affirmative and none in the negative bill 786 passes and we are back on the bill further discussion and debate on SB 786, Speaker changes: Mr. president, Speaker changes: ?? what purpose you are, Speaker changes:send forth a memo Speaker changes:send forward your memo.?? Speaker changes: ?? Speaker changes: you have the floor Speaker Changes:Thank you yesterday there were some discussion about the penalties for unlawful disclosure.This moment before you simply changed that from a class one ?? to class 1 ?? urgent support, Speaker changes:Further discussion and debate on ?? 8 percent bill 76 ?? Speaker changes:Mr.president when the felon he was put in place we tried to follow long with what existing law dealt with it has it is a materials it also includes other areas of confidentiality which were in the mister miner area ,this is not specifically an area that is totally clear so by that being said following line in the mister miner would be acceptable for us under the circumstances i would ask the senate support ?? Speaker changes:further discussion and debate and ?? hearing on the senators the questions before the passage of ?? 8 to SB 786 all in favor will vote on off course all know 5 second will be allowed for voting ??,47 have been voted in the affirmative and 9 in the negative for ?? 8 passes and the SB 786 is back before the body is there further discussion and debate, Speaker changes:Mr.president, Speaker changes:Senate ?? for what purpose you are? Speaker changes:To speak briefly on the bill, Speaker changes:Hear you have the floor, Speaker changes:Thank you,Mr. president ladies and gentleman senate i said and listened at the debate on the bill last couple of days several things come to mind first i want to command the floor sponsor and those who on the ?? making the thing some progress some improvement to this bill,but is always reflecting on this particular bill i thought about senate McLean's comments yesterday and this consideration of the bill or to be about ensuring to be about we have clean drinking water in the state and there is no precautions that we can take there are are reasons when it comes to make me sure we do have clean drinking water in the state what was going to be a major issue in the state and in the country during this entry just as in the south west and the western part of the country so we have to be very careful that we don't do any thing that's going to harm the water supply ,now it took tens and millions of years for this gas to built up for below this surface of North Carolina on the other places i have the benefit of talking to the geologist overtime about the formations in North Carolina or ?? but in each of those conversations that we always get big for the question of can you beat two cautious and how you try to extract that something from the earth it's been below the surface of hundred million years or any else before the dinosaurs and i think it's not unreasonable ,when we look at that to understand some of the state of geologist ourselves bout twenty years ago there was a debate on whee we have to spend some nuclear waste and North Carolina popped up his one of the states that would be a god candidate that spent put nuclear waste North Carolina place out of Nevada i think the yelp river valley some where the north eastern part of the north western part of the state an surprisingly a strip of rock rate through here and northern whack county on in the Franklin county.

And as we thought about it more and more I think that people realized that the processes that nature had created over billions of years have to be studied very, very carefully. And so I’m not really bothered that much that the mining commission or what was the mining commission will be a new name, was sort of moving slowly and figuring out how we do this. Because I as well as all of you want to create good high paying jobs in North Carolina. And I want those decisions in creating those jobs to be sure that they’re balanced for things that are in the best interest of our citizens. And if it takes the commission all of these knowledgeable people, whether they’re geologists or chemists or biologists or various others, if it takes them an extra six months, a year, two years, to figure out how we ought to attack something that’s taken tens of million years to develop, that doesn’t seem unreasonable to me. And so while I think there are some great things in this bill, the issue that Senator McLaurin raised yesterday, with the fault line down in Anson County. You know, it seems that the commission has a look at the potential impact of earthquakes and other things of that nature. And so if this is where we ought to go, we ought to let the experts take us there in a cautious way. And so we ought to be willing to let them formulate and ?? of all these regulations. The kind of amendment that Senator Jenkins sent forth. So they can determine how you figure out whether somebody is putting poison that’s been banned because we already learned that it has the ability to migrate through the ground and get into the ground water. That’s the kind of decision that the commission ought to make before we plow head-long into this. And so after our last session, I got pretty comfortable that we all wanted to take all of these precautions and the commission would come along and do what they wanted to do, and as most things in the scientific community, you test it. And people react to it. And there’s a degree of certainty once you’ve done all of that. And so our rush head-long into this I think without letting the expert process go its full measure is less than what I would hope. Our fast-tracking, doing it without looking at what the real risk to the water of this state might be, bothers me. And so for that reason, Mr. President, I’m going to vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, question before the senate is the passage on third reading of SB of the committee substitute to SB 786. All in favor will vote Aye. All opposed will vote No. 5 seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. Senator Jackson, 35 having voted in the affirmative and 11 in the negative. 36, I’m sorry. 36 in the affirmative, 11 in the negative. SB 786 has passed its third reading. The amendments will be engrossed and the bill will be sent to the house. SB 734. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 734. Regulatory reform act of 2014. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. This bill basically continues to make state rulemaking more efficient and increases needed protection for the environment and the public. The bill also streamlines the environmental permitting process, and makes it easier for citizens and businesses to obtain needed permits. It also removes obsolete regulations and some of those I just want to mention a few so we can lighten the meeting today. It’s going to scrap a ban on burning logs larger than six inches in diameter, even though we can put logs that size in a fireplace in

My favorite one is it's going to get rid of a ?? ban on cruising on the highway. Now, I know all of you will be glad about that on your way home tonight. The other one is it's extremely interesting is that you no longer have to relinquish a party telephone line in case of an emergency. Some of you in here probably do not even know what the party telephone line is. Like you, Senator Barefoot. But it also, at the same time, increases the number of environmental and consumer protections and creates helpful rules. It increases penalties for those who violate endangered plants ?? increases the handicap fee from $100 for illegal parking in a handicap parking space to $500, up to that amount. One of the great things it does is it clarifies that off-duty emergency medical professionals volunteering to give aid with no expectations of compensation are protected under the good Samaritan law. It also allows citizens or businesses to have ?? wave penalties. If you go and self-identify yourselves as possibly doing something illegal in the environment or something you really didn't realize you had done at the time, you won't be charged with civil penalties if you go to the ?? and basically beg forgiveness. Now, that does not mean that if you are caught doing something that harms the environment by ?? that you won't be fined. It also does a lot for proactive measures to protect the agriculture and, of course, that's our state's largest industry. This went through AGG and there were several questions, but it was moved out unanimously by the vote. Next, it went to finance. There were several questions, and it was also passed out unanimously by the vote. So, I've asked for your support today on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brock, you have the floor to explain amendment one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Make sure it's on everybody's dashboard. And Senator Barefoot, we do know what the party line is like. If somebody sends a group message on Facebook, then you get constantly notified that the people are on it. So, we still have our own form of party lines today. But this amendment is a follow-up to the amendment I ran yesterday, committee, which was the omnibus technical corrections. This is ?? this omnibus technical corrections number two. Reading through the amendment real quick, you'll see where certain lines were left out in the original bill. Some sections and headings and things that were made right. And also, probably the meat of the first amendment is the change that we went in and took out too much yesterday when we were making some of the changes in the reform of the onsite wastewater regulation to make sure that what we moved a few years ago we're moving it back to make sure that the rule-making process follows. So, we're just making a correction to the correction to the bill. I ?? your support [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on amendment one? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hearing now the question for the senate is the passage of amendment one to SB 734. All in favor will vote "aye," all opposed will vote "no." Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. 47 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, amendment one passes and the bill is back before you. Is there further discussion or debate? Mr. Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. To offer an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Members, this is a very straightforward amendment. It deals with section 3

.9 that's on, well in the version I have it's page 27, and what that provision does has the effect of taking out more than half of all ambient air monitors sites, or actual air monitor units, in the entire state. Where there are 133 air quality monitors in North Carolina, only 73 of them according to Diener[?], as I understand it, are required by EPA. So, essentially half of all air monitors would be forced to be pulled down and taken away and all these things do is measure how dirty our air is. Is our air polluted? Does it have too much NOx or too much SOx or ozone or whatever air pollutant there is that causes respiratory problems for our people. And I don't think we wanna be the camel that sticks our head in the sand and, taking the monitors away does not take the pollution away. It just takes away our knowledge of whether there is pollution hurting our respiratory systems. So all this does is, amendment, take the section out so that Diener[?] can keep the 133 air monitors that we have so we can know whether our folks are liable to get sick or not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on amendment 2. Senator Wade, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, I appreciate your concern but I will let the Senate know that the EPA is getting ready to enforce new laws that then make us put in point-source monitors, these are regional, and we need to free up, of course, all the resources we can to be able to do this and put them at the point-source. So I would ask you to vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on amendment 2. Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if the bill sponsor will yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I know that we've had trouble with air pollution, particularly around Charlotte, that's mainly generated by cars and pollution so how does the point-source issue affect cars, whether it's in Charlotte or anywhere else in the state, where there's not a point? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, we certainly need the resources free'd up in order to see what the EPA recommends and that's more what this bill is intended to do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on amendment 2? Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, send forth a substitute amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President, members, one had chance to review the bill over here, going to page 61, line 41, I believe we need to go from October 1st to December 1st, 2014. That's all this amendment does, I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on amendment 3. Senator Stein, for what do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, to ask Senator Apodaca a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, if we were to adopt this amendment, what is the effect on my underlying amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It will be dead. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on amendment 3. Hearing none, question before this Senate is the passage of amendment 3 to SB 734, all in favor will vote I, all opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for the voting, clerk will record the vote. 31 having voted in the affirmative and 16 in the negative amendment 3 passes and Senate Bill 734 is back before you for consideration. Is there further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will Senator Wade yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Senator Wade. I was looking at this bill and two sections pop out at me. It's section 3.19, which transfers rule making authority for waste water systems from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental

Management commission and and section 3.33, which transfers the solid waste rule-making authority from the Commission for Public Health to the Environmental Management Commission. Will the Public Health, Commission for Public Health have any rule-making authority in any area after you make these transfers? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, sir, they won't. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further question, Miss ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? Senator Wade, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the Public Health Commission still be in business or is it being eliminated? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, sir. It's still gonna be in business but there's other law duties that they have to perform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And one further question Miss President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So they will not have any enforcement authority in either of these areas but they will have authority left, in other words, relating to the public health? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They have other public health responsibilities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One final question I think, Miss President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So it will be the Environmental Management Commission's duty to enforce these regulations that they promulgate as it relates to health issues involving drinking water and solid waste? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, Senator Blue, I wouldn't, first tell you to look at the makeup of the two boards. On the Public Health board, they have a registered engineer, a licensed veterinarian, a licensed optometrist, a licensed dentist and a registered nurse, and the other four members are selected by the North Carolina Medical Society. Now these will be making rules based on water quality and the Environmental group, their members include- Sorry, I have to take my glasses off to read. Their members include a medical professional, agriculture, engineering, fish and wildlife, ground water, air water, pollution control, municipal and county government, and a public at large. They all have to represent those areas. Now, I personally would prefer the Environment Management Commission than having, no offense to optometrists and veterinarians as myself, but I would rather have those looking after my water. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Twice a year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on seventh- ?? 734. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodard, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill's sponsor a question, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, I want to direct your attention to section 3.16. I know this is a simple change of one word from the existing ?? law statute we passed last year. Could you help me understand what the effect of that change would be as proposed in this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hold on just a minute, I have to find that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If it helps, Senator Wade, page 34 of the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have it, thank you. It merely allows piping for strain and allows the local jurisdiction to accept what the federal government puts forth as mitigation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does it preempt- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh, I'm sorry, Mister President. Yes, may I ask another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You yield, Senator Wade? She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Sorry. But as I read it, help me understand. Would it preempt local control over that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, it would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. Thank you, Senator Wade. Mister President, then I would like to offer an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe the-

Speaker: Resonance should be on the dashboard, Speaker changes:?? Speaker changes: ?? Speaker changes: ?? you have the floor to explain your memo, Speaker changes: Really simple Mr.president members this simply removes the section here because you all know that we are still continuing to discuss the Jordan lake rule,we have committee that worked during the ?? this ,in my mind in emptying that control now until we had a chance to fully wet the Jordan lake rules as a body through our committees and ultimately this body here chamber here is premature we need to look at those rules in total as we continue to move forward on these and i would ask you to remove this from the bill continue what loccal governments so what local governments should do until we fully develop the jordan lake rules and had the chance to implement them again another continuing to attack on the local control here,we got the time to discuss this is not the time or place to i think to go ahead and take care of these buffers lets look the process of Jordan lake that we set up last summer play out, Speaker changes:further discussion and debate on ?? for what purpose you ask, Speaker changes:to speak to them in, Speaker changes:you have the floor, Speaker changes:i will tell the senate that this is already gone under federal permitting there is no longer strain the strain is in the pipe under the ground so there is no longer river bed or buffets that needs to be in place because the stream is in pipe under the ground and it is just redented for the person putting in that got the permit to and have to go again to the local government and do the same thing they just did to federal government and i would aask you to further vote now on the men, Speaker changes: further discussion and debate ?? hearing on the question on the centers the passage on ?? 4 the SB 734 all in favor will vote all off course they'll know five seconds will be allowed for voting ??16 have voted in the affirmative and 31 in the negative SB fails and SB 734 is back before you for further discussion and debate, Speaker Changes:Mr.President ?? for what purposes you are, Speaker changes:send forward a memo, Speaker changes:send forward you memo ?? Speaker changes:?? Speaker changes: ?? have the floor, Speaker changes:i know i have seen for several ?? identifying with one which is section 3.26 start the one you have at the dashboard, Speaker changes:hold on just a minute, Speaker changes:is this identified as ?? would have said ?? Speaker changes: i believe that's the one we have .you have the floor, speaker changes :very good what does this memo does is really quite simple like simple which is quite direct will remove the language in the bill relating to section 3.26 which repels the state energy office to go out to do energy ?? .we require this office to be do ?? for every five yeras very reasonable interval to make certain that we are making the best use to our resources to reduce waste when it comes to electricity when it comes to water or other essential utilities it is our best ?? in terms of reducing operating cost and to encourage official source of resources to have this energy on it's perform routinely ?? as specified so this particular ?? will simply repeal this language with this in the bill which will lead the section requiring energy on by it's state energy office of our state billing and institution of higher leanings, Speaker changes:?? just to make sure that we got the right ?? and this is the one that ?? the bill on page 38 beginning with line 11 , Speaker changes:that is correct OK, Speaker changes:further discussion and debate on ?? Speaker changes:Mr. president, Speaker changes:?? what purpose you ask, Speaker changes: on your memo, Speaker changes:you have the floor, Speaker changes:?? and others are offering these memos which amazes me i mean you ?? you all on the bill you planned to vote against i contiued to be amazed by this, Speaker changes:?? what purpose you ask , Speaker changes:to speak on the memo, Speaker changes:you have the floor, Speaker changes: the state energy office still have to submit a report yearly and let this body know about the energy official so i would ask you to vote now on.

Further discussion or debate on Amendment 5, the SB 734. Hearing on question for the Senate is a passage of Amendment 5 Senate Bill 734. All in favor will vote aye all opposed with vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the vote. Clerk will record the vote. 16 having voted in the affirmative, 31 in the negative. Amendment 5 fails. SB 734 is back before you. Is there further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This particular amendment relates to section 2.2, which is on page 11 of the bill. What this would do is safely allow, when there is a particular group, that may challenge air quality permit. The way the provisions work right now, if that contested case hearing was filed, there would be an automatic stay until there was deliberations heard, to determine whether in fact that permit should be moved forward. This is very simple. I can remind you, these air quality permits fall underneath provisions established by the Environmental Protection Agency, established by President Nixon, to control air quality in our country. And I would hope and trust, that with the tradition that he established, in terms of protecting our air quality, that we would want to continue to make sure that our air quality, as well as our streams, as we’ve discussed earlier in connection with other matters, is in fact protected to continue to have a wonderful quality of life in North Carolina. So I hope and trust that we would continue the existing procedures, longstanding and established, as opposed to omitting them in a way which is likely to result in air quality in North Carolina being compromised. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there further discussion or debate on Amendment 6? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade (sp?), for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It doesn’t preclude anyone [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the Amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It doesn’t preclude anyone from still filing legal action against any development or whatever they deem necessary, but it will, you can’t do frivolous filings against someone, a company, or something about air quality, unless is actually does exceed the expect requirements for air quality. And I would ask you to vote no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.President, send forth the substitute amendment, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sent forward your amendment. Clerk will read. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca moves to amend the bill. Senator Apodaca, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Members, again, I found another incorrect date. I was hoping we’d catch these errors before we went forward. But if you’ll look on page 62, line 9, we need to change that from October 1st to November 1st, 2014. I ask you to support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on Amendment 7. Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Apodaca a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, he yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Two things, Senator Apodaca. What will be the substitute effect of this change as it relates to the bill as opposed to date change? How does it substitutely and materially change the bill in terms of its operation or function? And then secondly, what’s the procedural effect? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you Senator McKissick. One, it changes the date from October 1st to November 1st, and in my opinion, makes it a much better bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on Amendment 7? Hearing on question for the Senate is a question of Amendment 7, the SB 734. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. ?? Tillman aye. 31 having voting in the affirmative, 16 in the negative. Amendment 7 passes and SB 734 is back before you. Further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment. Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate McKissick moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a pretty straightforward

For the amendment as well. It deals with page 6 of the bill and it basically says that when it comes to the actual innocence commission, that we would like to see that particular commission abolished and express a willingness to ask the chief justice of the supreme court of North Carolina to consider the abolishment of that particular commission. I might point out that it was the actual innocence commission that was recently established by chief justice I. Beverly Lake, which came forth for recommendation for establishing the innocence inquiry commission. It’s my understanding that at this particular time, Justice Mark Martin who is running for chief justice, would like to see that particular - [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Continue to exist - [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of information, sir. Question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could Senator McKissick speak a little louder so we could hear his debate? I’m not able to hear it very well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, we’ll get Senator Rucho a new set of hearing aids, but if you’ll go ahead and make sure you hold the microphone a little closer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As I was saying earlier. For Senator Rucho’s benefit, and the benefit of any and all others that may have hearing impairments, we want to make certain from this point forth that this amendment is fully understood and appreciated for the purpose for which it was intended and offered. And that is to make certain that the actual innocence commission continues to exist, which was first proposed by chief justice I. Beverly Lake. Justice Mark Martin would also like to see it continue, and he’s by some people’s expectations may be the next chief justice of the Supreme Court. I have a memo from here from Chris Muma who was in fact involved in the actual innocence inquiry commission, dated by yesterday’s date, saying there’s plenty of work to be done, and in fact in 2011 it stated that as part of the forensic science reform act, committee meetings, the AG, the state bureau, director as well as others came together to say that there was an absolute imperative need to continue this particular commission. That it encourages productive dialogue of experienced invested individuals with the common objective of justice, court efficient, proven effectiveness. I think there’s a real reason to keep this entity around. There’ve actually been 11 states that have gone out and modeled what we have done in North Carolina. So I hope and trust that we can continue this particular commission and not encourage the chief justice to abolish it. So I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there further discussion or debate on amendment A? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade. For what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, I know you brought this up in ag and Senator Hartsell was there to discuss it. He’s not here today due to a family crisis. I know Senator Tillman also spoke on this. And Senator Tillman may want to speak on this amendment. He did in ag, since Senator Hartsell’s not here. But I would just ask after the discussion that Senator Hartsell and Senator Tillman had on this particular issue in ag. I would ask you to vote no, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick I indicated earlier that rule 14 would allow only one speaking on an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Well in that case maybe I can ask Senator Wade a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Were you aware of the fact that in fact there was a continued need for this particular commission at the time this language was proposed? And are you aware of whether Senator Hartsell or Senator Tillman in fact were aware that it was continued need and desire for it to continue to function, at the time this went into the regulatory reform bill. It’s my understanding that in the past, when this bill came forth, there were times when it was in it, and there were times when it was deleted. It was possible that it was from the state that it got included at this time. So I mean, were you aware of those things, or have you had a chance to speak with anyone? I think yesterday I expressed an interest in asking that someone go back and look into this and perhaps reconsider this language. Because in my mind, if you’ve got people who really feel that this needs to continue to exist. 11 other states have modeled themselves after North Carolina. This is not an effort that we could abandon. But do you know whether any of those actions have in fact occurred? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, this was an APO committee.

… recommendation, and I wasn’t in those committee meetings but I did hear what Senator Hartsell had to say, and Senator Tillman, and I would yield if the President would allow Senator Tillman to answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman can speak on the amendment or Senator McKissick can redirect his question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tillman, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, I was here when Justice Beverley Lake came around and twisted arms to get us to start the Innocence Commission and to put it into legislation. That’s been over ten years ago, and I would ask you and your colleagues to tell me how many cases they’ve reviewed, how much money we’ve put into that Commission, and how many cases have been overturned because of their work. You’ll find that they have done little or nothing and had no effect on cases that they have heard. When you have a functioning body that doesn’t have anything to do and doesn’t reverse any decisions and you want to keep funding them, that’s your problem. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President, if I could just speaks as to relating to those comments that were addressed to me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, you can direct a question to another member of the body, you can… I mean I think that’s basically what you can do at this point under the rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe he addressed contents within that particular statement he made to me directly in terms of… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick, what I will do is I will on motion of the chair temporarily suspend that rule if you want to speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister President. First I would like to make a distinction between the Actual Innocence Commission and the Innocence Inquiry Commission. They’re two separate, independent entities which I believe Senator Tillman has confused. Well perhaps he has not. He indicates he hasn’t. In any case, the Innocence Inquiry Commission, which is a separate, independent group which is not affected by this particular language in the bill, would continue to exist, and I would like to point out that what they have done in my opinion is exceptional work because if you find perhaps a half dozen people that were wrongfully incarcerated or convicted because they were innocent, then they deserve to be freed. They deserve not to serve a day longer in jail. Not one single member of this body, nor any of their friends nor relatives, would want to serve a day in jail for a crime they did not commit. That’s the work that they do, which is indeed exceptional and something we should be proud of in terms of establishing it in North Carolina – not a waste of resources but indeed a commitment to our Constitution and our laws that people should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. So yes, they have done great work. This particular matter at this time is related to the Actual Innocence Commission, which is the body that came together that looked at perhaps problems with the administration of criminal justice in our state and recommended the establishment of the Innocence Inquiry Commission. They would still like to continue to function and to operate and to address problems with the criminal justice system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President, send forth the substitute amendment please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward your amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Apodaca has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister President. Members, I’ve had time to read the bill a little further and I’ve discovered something else. If we’ll go to page 60, line 47, we’re not going to be prepared by November 30th, so we need to substitute and put in December 1st. I ask for your support so that extra day will help us make this a much better bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on Amendment 9? Senator Tucker, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President, just to make a comment on the Amendment, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to thank Senator Apodaca for not fast-tracking things here. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on Amendment 9? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of Amendment 9 to SB 734. All in favor will vote “Aye”, all opposed will vote “No”. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote.

Senator Stein, no, Senator Woodard, no. Thirty-one having voted in the affirmative, 16 in the negative, amendment 9 to SB 734 passes and the bill is back before you. Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, question before the Senate is the passage on second reading of the committee substitute to SB 734, all in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. Clerk will record the vote. Senator Woodard, no. Thirty-seven have voted in the affirmative and ten in the negative. SB 734 passes at second reading and will remain on the calendar. Members of the Senate, when we were addressing SB 786, I announced the vote total as 36 in favor and 11 in the negative. That was a misstatement of the total. The actual total was ayes 35, nos 12. And SB 786 passes its third reading and the amendments were being grossed and sent to the House. Senator Rucho, for what purpose you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I may request that that be sent by special messenger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Okay, members of the Senate, I have an additional courtesy of the gallery that I’d like to announce. Also, in conjunction with that, I will be submitting a senatorial statement. Members of the Senate, in the gallery today is Duane Best and his wife Gloria. Duane, if you and Gloria would stand, I would appreciate it. Duane is a former resident of the Eaton, North Carolina. Was a music teacher in the public schools of North Carolina for probably more years than he would like to remember. He was also the choir director at First Presbyterian Church in Eaton. He and Gloria have been stellar citizens of North Carolina for a number of years. And for the city of Eaton in Rockingham County. They now reside in Wake County. And it’s a pleasure for them to be here today, and I will be submitting the senatorial statement. The House has also passed a resolution today honoring Mr. Best for his work. He was, in 2014, inducted into the North Carolina Music Educator Association’s High School Choral Hall of Fame. The high school auditorium in Eaton is named after him. So, Duane, Gloria, thank you for being here today. [APPLAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I move that all bills placed, that would normally appear on the calendar tomorrow and Monday and Tuesday. Well, it’d just be tomorrow. Anyway, all bills pending will be put on Wednesday’s calendar, May 28, including the bill we just heard that would be for third reading, 734. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, so ordered without objection. Members of the Senate, we’ve come to the end of the week and we would like to thank our pages for their service this week. Pages, I hope you, and we hope that you’ve enjoyed your week and that you’ve learned something. Had an opportunity to speak with your sponsoring member and others. We appreciate the work that you and other pages throughout the year do to help our members in carrying out their task. So, if we give all of our pages a round of applause, please. [APPLAUSE] Notices and announcements. Senator Brown, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Republicans will caucus immediately after session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Democrats for caucus immediately after session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Van Duyn, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ??

The bench sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yesterday was North Carolina’s Arts Day and I am proud to say that we accommodated with a national recognition for an artist from my district who was named the third North Carolinian to win the American Idol competition. So I stand today to congratulate North Carolina in Caleb Johnson for his victory last night. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goth what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would be remised if I left the chambers today and not wish and let you know my dear friend and our distinguished colleague, Senator Tommy Tucker is 64 today, and Senator Tucker I just want you to know that you don’t look a day older, you don’t look a day older than, you don’t look as old as Tillman. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. Senator Goolsby why do you rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A point of personal privilege. Mr. President I will not be, of course, returning at the end of this term but I would like to recognize someone. It is his birthday. He is considerably younger than Mr. Tucker. It is my long-standing legislative assistant Joseph Kieser who is 28 today. He has been with me the entire, well most all of my time since my first term and I really appreciate his help. He has served me and my constituents well of New Hanover County and God bless you Joseph. I hope you have a wonderful birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. Is there further business to come before the Senate? If not, the chair recognizes Senator Pate for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, an announcement. In light of the Memorial Day holiday weekend, the Senate will hold a skeleton session tomorrow, Friday, May 23rd, beginning at 9:30 a.m. The Senate will then reconvene on Tuesday, May 27th, 2014 at 5:00 p.m. And for a motion, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I move that the Senate do now adjourn subject to the receipt and re-referral of messages from the House and the Governor, the introduction of Bills and Resolutions, the receipt and re-referral of committee reports, and the referral and re-referral of Bills and Resolutions to reconvene on Tuesday, May 27th, at 5:00 p.m. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Pate, I believe that should be on Friday, May 23rd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me. Yes, that will be tomorrow, Friday, May 23rd at 9:30 a.m., skeleton session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is that the Senate do now adjourn subject to the stipulations stated by Senator Pate to reconvene on Friday, May 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. Seconded by Senator Heinz. All in favor say aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it and the Senate stands adjourned.