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

searching for


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

House | May 7, 2013 | Committee Room | Agriculture

Full MP3 Audio File

M.J. of the semi-tough to find a model as it did shelf likely when I called the class war but the 33 years of age and ability to 90 by a higher standard bonds today for a minds rages sales john Brennan and mike lead an honor roll pages or Wayne Smith who like Samsung is to boxer Alexander’s four late Sammy Sosa sponsor 100 miles away, saying his boxing and SAC got some favorite lots of this pond that the first bill is passed bill 642 will and this is a PCs from element of motion that both the assembly of the PCs four solid there's a lot of old version of the senate and the PCs and fourth law hospital 64 PM Aussie and leave your butt this is that this might not a problem that I get the name of this chairman members of the committee on hunger percent at hospitals 64 came as long as they have just really attended role changed our current conditions: North Carolina for agriculture, (SPEAKER CHANGES) it can allow four, farmers to turn transition from commodity Monday and to allow for them to home , continue in business without the meaning of stapler Stewart has a new search of work to make it clear that a former can still be said or nuisance under this bill is just recallable perceptions to the polls somewhat going for another comeback resumption and then later served as the producer two serve as an affect all it does provide a day that the party follows a wall Saint Andrews of successful there's a potential two for the court toward returning studies on for the phone with the plight of the art of charge to plan for the attorneys' fees two vote for the defendants of defections to some of the things for which it will be happy to answer the questions will not send letters pages to this appears to be a friendly deal almost farcical Hawaii and it will return a call from ocean demands alleged that they things turned aside the cursor engine for staff so when sample what exactly does exchange for a long row house world differently this bill passed . We'll have a lot of personality and first as a matter of disclosure that all we have a tough enough that would be a very formal 170 Kelso, we're saying this is a conflict, but in this film just full disclosure recommended a word that a person would give you can look of wines sold 22 to 40¢ on their day in court cases to the indicated them understanding that are that if you are playing the race chickens and then you transitional to the sod foolishly the start of the reforms for milking cows sown us Sunday at least once a break for 65-year bomb under our existing court cases that is the only as a substantial change in your operation across the web from Chechens tells some of you would not be covered under the existing home usage protection law and the staff of this interpretation or percent of those wonderful revision of its staff that(SPEAKER CHANGES) connect to the news group that Mr. Chairman of the deadly people basically the way it is now all come???......

if you have a farm that's been in operation for more than a year, it was not a nuisance at the time it began, and you fundamentally change your operation, the one-year timer in which you can be sued under the nuisance laws restarts. Under the Durham v. ? case, it's cited in the summary. This PCS would make it so that the changes between lines 22 and 26 don't reset the clock. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Wilkins -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This may be for staff as well. What's the acid, I'm looking at line 23, what's the acid test for non-permanent cessation? How long's it going to take to determine that? I lost something. How long's it going to take to determine that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is not a defined term. It's not defined in the statute. A court would have to decide. I think it would probably be interpreted not in a matter of years, more like matter of months. But it's really for a court to decide. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In my understanding, Rep. Wilkins, under, and this is a somewhat distinctive law, but under a lot of zoning law and other law in our state, you have non-conforming use, and if it remains out of operation for six months or more, then you lose that non-conforming use designation, so that's what I would, and while that might not be binding on a court, that's a similar thought. You know, if you had a chicken farm and then you close that chicken farm down and then three months later start a dairy farm, I would contend that's not a non-permanent cessation or interruption of farming. But I think staff's right. It's ultimately a factual question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. G. Graham -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, may I ask the speaker a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may ask a question, and no questions are stupid. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Some politician might think so, but not here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Thank you so much, sir. If you convert to a chicken house and you don't have comprehensive land-use planning and you have the property out and all of a sudden somebody comes out and builds a couple of homes for maybe $150,000 or so, and it's next door to my chicken or turkey operation, can I be ruled against in a case such as that? Or does that property, if it ever had an agricultural use, that that permanently prohibits it from being into a suit? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Graham, my viewpoint of this statute of this proposed bill is that, and I think a reasonable critique of this bill, would be that if someone was farming, and as you understand, most bona fide farms are exempt from the local regulations under current state law. So if I was growing row crops, and I decide to change from row crops to a dairy farm, this bill would provide you some protection, would provide the farmer protection, but I would remind you that it's a rebuttable presumption, so the presumption can be overturned in court, if you can, as a plaintiff, make that case. I mean that would be my argument. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Starnes -- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is a wonderful bill that's needed. In today's economy, with the changing face of agriculture, farmers want to continue farming, but they find they have to be diversified in their operations. So where they've been doing one thing, they have to change into other things just to keep the farm going. When you asked the question about the non-permanent cessation or interruption of farming, probably a more accurate explanation to this would be if you're [CUTS OFF]

Representative: chicken business and your chicken house burnt down, and it took you a year to get it rebuilt and get back into the chicken business, they do not want you to say that you were out of farming for a year. So this allows you to keep going. It is a good bill. Mr. Chairman I move for a favorable report… Speaker: Representative [xx], he wanted to do a motion. Is that okay? Representative: I will be glad to. Staff, I want to make a comment. Just to clarify, the rebuttable presumption language that was in the first addition of the bill, it is not in the PCS, but at line 27, it does provide that an agricultural operation will not be protected when the [xx] results from the negligent operation of the agricultural forestry operation. Speaker: I apologize for misleading you. I am a day behind. You want to speak behind Representative Lucas? I cannot see your name. Representative Wells? Representative: I have a question for staff. Just taking the other side of this: if a developer wanted to buy a farm, is there anything in this to keep him from buying a soybean farm next door, converting it to 5000 chickens, and then getting the farm at a better price? Speaker: Staff? Representative: The bill does not really affect that. That depends on zoning ordinances. Speaker: Representative Lucas, for the motion. This is the PCS and goes to the judiciary. Representative: Thank you MR. Chair. I make a motion for a favorable report to the PCS, unfavorable to the original and to send the bill to judiciary A. Speaker: You have heard the motion. All those in favor, signify by saying aye [aye]. All opposed, no [silence]. The ayes have it. Motion carries. Thank you Representative Simms. Representative Presnow? House bill 628, and this is a PCS. Somebody give me a motion for the PCS? Representative Brisson makes a motion that we have the PCS. All in favor say aye [aye]. All opposed, no [silence. The ayes have it. PCS is enforced. Representative: Okay, this is again, house bill 628. This is a jobs bill. It supports NC products and said construction, and stops sending our tax dollars out of the state. This bill actually creates a level playing field in green building standards in state construction. I want you to know that there are four governors in GA, AL, OR and ME, that have already protected their local products and have addressed this issue by executive order. Similarly, there are four other states, one being AL, that are adopting legislation to protect their local products: AL, MS, TN, and FL. My concern on this began when Madison County’s US forest service was built using no NC wood products. They used wood from Brazil for a bamboo floor. That is what began the whole thing. This bill does not eliminate lead or any other national standard. It recognizes all national environmental building rating systems, as long as they do not discredit local, certified products. By encouraging lead standards in public buildings, the general service administration favors a system that gives preference to foreign timber in domestic building projects. This market extortion takes place because leads credit based rating system only recognizes timber certified by the forest stewardship council as sustainable. Since 90% of the forest stewardship certifications take place outside of the US and about ¾ of certified forests in North America are certified in using programs other than the FSC, the forest stewardship council and lead creates incentives for builders to import foreign wood and also ignores the majority of high quality wood within our own borders. Lead will award sourcing credits for market access to the forest stewardship council certified wood from Russia, Indonesia, Brazil, but not from the

vast majority of North Carolina and American lumber. I ask Nancy Thompson, do you want to say a few things? Bob Schaffer ?? [speaker changes] Identify yourself. [speaker changes] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm Bob Schaffer. I'm the executive vice president of the North Carolina Forestry Association based here in Raleigh. North Carolina Forestry Association is the oldest conservation organization in North Carolina. We promote the growing and harvesting of the most precious natural resource, our forest. Our members grow and harvest North Carolina timber under the most sustainable, environmentally sensitive practices anywhere in the world. At the same time, we produce goods, services, jobs, taxes, clean water, wildlife habitat and recreation. House Bill, House Bill 628 is a great step in recognizing the forestry business in North Carolina and what they contribute to the state. That they should not be disadvantaged when trying to supply lead certified projects. That the certification systems we use are second to none. You will hear lead gives points towards certification under regional, material credit. It gives more credit for wood certified under its own certification scheme for its stewardship council than any other certification scheme used in North Carolina. In fact, wood under no certification scheme or system would get the same credit as other forest service other than FSC. The message here is if you do not certify by FSC, then you will not get as much credit. Ask one of the owners of Lampe & Malphrus which is a sawmill located in Smithfield, North Carolina. Ross Lampe tried last year to get to supply some of the pine lumber from his mill to a project to try on ??. They were told the SFI certification lumber was not acceptable. Then the job was supplied with loblolly pine trees treated and processed in Arkansas. US Green Building council will tell you they promote locally harvested wood. They will also tell you that they promote reduced carbon emissions using less energy and contribute to a healthier environment or residents, workers and the larger community. However, I also know the distance Smithfield and Newburn is slightly different than the distance between Arkansas and Newburn. I'm sure they contributed to a healthier environment for the certain residents, workers, and community in Arkansas. I'm not here to talk about Arkansas. I'm here to talk about North Carolina products. Workers, jobs and taxes for North Carolina. The amount of diesel fuel that it takes to bring a truck of lumber from Arkansas versus Smithfield should speak for itself. There are 985,000 acres in North Carolina certified under SFI and there is another quarter million certified under the American Tree Farm system. Neither of which are recognized by Lead. House Bill 628 does not disallow the use of Lead. Rather, it invites lead to the table to discuss the various forest certification systems that are in place. We have no quarrel with FSC. We recognize FSC as a legitimate system to certify forests. We just do not think it is ever good for any system to be a closed shop where only one avenue for entry into the market is through one entity including Lead, SFI, SFC or Tree Farm. Thank you. [speaker changes] Thank you. [speaker changes] May I get Mike Carpenter from the North Carolina Homebuilder's Association? While he's coming up, I will tell you that I had heard that Commissioner Trotzer from Agriculture - Department of Agriculture- supports this bill. [speaker changes] I'm Mike Carpenter, executive vice president of the North Carolina Homebuilder's Association and I'll speak very briefly Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. We are in support of this legislation for the reasons Bob so eloquently expressed. Thank you. [speaker changes] I will also tell you, there is an amendment that I just put in. It is for any construction and renovation projects that are currently in the bidding process; those are exempt from the beginning of this.

00:00 representative Dixon. Mr chair did she say she's sending forth an amendment. yes sir just now passing it out. I didn't know she was sending forth an amendment. Mr chairman an inquiry to the chair..over here Mr chairman. I got you. my inquiry is whether there's anyone here who would like to speak against the bill. is there anyone that wishes to speak against the bill in the audience okay. thank you Mr chairman. thank you Mr chairman members of the committee my name is Will [??] I represent new core steel corporation new core is one of the largest steel manufacturers in this nation were headquartered in Charlotte we have a large steel [??] county representative [??] district [??] roughly 450 people while very well intention-ed we believe house bill 628 would have a negative impact on domestically manufactured steel any red blooded North Carolinean would support promoting North Carolina lumber but we believe this bill goes much further than that I would respectfully disagree with the previous speaker I believe that this bill would actually prohibit the state from seeking lead certification in new publicly constructed projects currently domestic steel benefits greatly from lead that's because most steel produced here in the united states and here in North Carolina is made primarily from recycled content at new core today over 99 percent recycled content and we've invested a tremendous amount of time and resources to produce a product that can help generate lead points for those that seek them it's actually right now it's a big advantage that we have over competitors in China and India as you can imagine it's difficult to compete with other countries that don't play by the same set of rules we do but that's an argument for a different day this is one advantage that we do have lead benefits domestic steel we would certainly be supportive of some sort of study [??] to look at how we can help lumber this is not a steel versus lumber thing we coexist peacefully but taking away lead would hurt steel and we just hope you can consider that when you vote on this bill. thank you the amendment representative [??] you read. no I've remember that this bill does not eliminate lead anything that lead does and they want to use steel in it [??] I'm for it because that's for North Carolina if you recall right down here under the I the first I about the middle it says to achieve sustainable building standards at a construction project may utilize internationally recognized high performance environmental building rating system provided that any such rating system does not use immaterial or product based credit system this advantage in materials or products manufactured or produced in this state so I think that that takes care of the steel. you wanna send forth the amendment. the amendment is this act is effective when it becomes law and applies to construction and renovation projects for which the bidding process is initiated on or after that date. you've heard the amendment any discussion on the amendment okay now a motion [??] the amendment all in favor say aye. aye. all opposed no..the ayes have the motion's carried representative Dixon wishes to speak. thank you Mr chair members of the committee this issue alone with other issues that come forth in this general assembly we can speak many words or we can speak a few words I'm gonna choose to speak a few words today there have been people who have been repeatedly invited to the table for the last 15 years to level the playing field for our forest tree industry and our lumber people and our home builders in North Carolina they have not accepted those invitations it is now time to level that playing field with this excellent legislation to send a message that we indeed are concerned about North Carolina jobs North Carolina products I've had many discussions since our last meeting there is nothing in here that destroys the competitive nature of any product in our state to compete for our business. 05:00

…you to support this bill as it is in front of you today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion at the appropriate time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative Waddell. Okay. Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] With all respect for the sponsor, my view is that the language that is being proposed here would effectively disapprove the use of LEADs standards in North Carolina. Basically the argument goes that some, perhaps all of North Carolina forests aren’t certified by the Forest Stewardship Council, that’s the FSC, and while this certification currently earns points towards LEAD certification, you need to notice that you also get points for local sourcing of wood. So LEADs gives you some points for local sourcing of wood even if it’s not certified. LEAD doesn’t explicitly recognize these other two certifications so if this bill passes, it would effectively end LEADs in North Carolina. Now what does that mean? A few years ago if that argument was made, it would mean a lot. Right now the estimate in 2014 is that 40%-48% of new non-residential construction will be green. That is $120-145 billion dollar number. Two billion square feet of buildings are currently LEAD certified as of June of last year. The green building market included two percent of our non residential construction starts in 2005. It was 12% in 2008 and is 28%-35% in 2012. What I’m trying to tell you is this market is huge and while the intention of this bill is really good and I want to be there and I want to support North Carolina project products, this is a very blunt instrument. So Mr. Chairman I send forth an amendment. I believe you have it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, does everybody have a copy of Representative McGrady’s bill? You’ll know that it’s been fixed then pass it out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And if I could while it’s being passed out, I’ll speak to it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Saves some time. This is an amendment that turns the bill into a study. It directs the state construction office and the department administration deener to study the use of products and raw materials manufactured, harvested, mined. It’s broader than just forests. Then to report back both to the ERC and the joint legislative commission non-government operations by March of next year. I think that’s the more appropriate way to handle this and I urge support for my amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Remember that this bill does not eliminate LEAD or any other national standard. Ladies and gentlemen, I ask you to please vote no on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mobley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I would ask you to support this amendment in as much as NuCore is a huge employer in my area. I certainly cannot vote to not approve the LEADS for them in particular. It’s one of our larger employers and I think we should do the study in order to see and make sure. If the amendment is not accepted then I would certainly have to vote against the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brisson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I’ll speak in opposition of the amendment. The bill actually is just promoting North Carolina products. End of the line and spiny NC groves and just to tell you a little bit what is going on with the commissioner of agriculture. In the last couple of years, with using this program and promoting it, we have been very fortunate to any…

[SPEAKER] These are exports from $1 billion to $3 billion and stand a chance to continue to move the growth of that. It does not denote steel or any other building products. So, it’s just about North Carolina grows. And I would ask you not to support this study amendment. I don’t know why Representative Grady thinks that we would need the study when we’re all trying to work with the Commissioner and the State of North Carolina to put money in there North Carolina products. So I ask you to oppose it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKERS] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And actually, Representative Brisson, there’s a quick answer to your question. Because when someone from New Corps comes forward and says this is a problematic bill and New Corps is a key part of our economy, particularly our northeastern North Carolina economy, and says that it’s New Corps judgment that the leads criteria for green sustainability cannot be met under Representative Presnell’s bill and she thinks it does, well we’ve got a serious disagreement. And further though the bill has been sent to agriculture, in fact, as we see this really affects much more than just agriculture narrowly defined, it’s actually about our entire economy. So to me, we are really doing a disservice to the whole issue of job creation and furtherance of our North Carolina economy if we do not allow this issue to be studied. I can see the perspective of Representative Presnell from the standpoint of looking for North Carolina wood products. But the larger question is what does this kind of legislation impact have on job creation within the North Carolina economy? And I think New Corps is saying, it’s a problem. And I think that there is someone spewed from the Green Building Council. I know, Mr. Chairman, you’re trying to move things along but there would be another person that could talk to you about job loss if this bill passes. For all these reasons, members, I think it’s a very good reason to support the McGrady Study Amendment. Representative Molly is right on target in terms of her own district. And I think we should all think in those larger terms. So I would urge support for the McGrady Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m just interested we’re going from forestry and woods and now manufacturing, mining, and harvesting in this amendment. And I had an inquiry for the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Gray. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we currently working under a standard that disadvantages North Carolina products and manufacturing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, the lead standard actually provides points. And that’s what it is, a certification for things that are acquired close to wherever it is it’s being build. And so, no, I don’t think we’re operating in that sort of climate. Further responding, I really do think the issue that Representative Presnell is raising is a bigger issue. It’s not really just about forest products. And so in talking with the Department, I really wanted to look at the broader set of issues, not just forestry.

Hey. Another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. You’ve heard the motion. All in favor of the motion, on 628, raise your hand. All opposed to 628. Votes 26 to 8 in favor. The bill passes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 623. 663…I can’t read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This bill, the purpose and rationale behind this bill is for farmers who produce a product in North Carolina. Initially, the earlier discussion it was going to be much broader. It’s limited to raw agriculture commodities. There’s a definition on line 17-19 of what raw agriculture commodities may be. The argument is when a farmer produces that product it’s accepted by a wholesaler or retailer. The farmer should have, and they produce that product in accordance with standards developed by the USDA, which is called a gap process. There is protection of liability for that farmer, to from liability unless in line 14 there is gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct on the part of the commodity producer. As I stated earlier, in another bill. We had a dairy farm. We do not produce raw agricultural commodity. This does not apply to anything that we produce on our farm. There is a senate bill. It’s not necessarily a companion bill, but similar language. It’s Senate bill 649. I would ask you to recommend this bill for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, I make a motion to do. The PCS be enforced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor of PCS be enforced say aye, all opposed no. Okay. (??) [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I don’t know. It says commodity producer. A producer approves fruits and vegetable and other agricultural products. What is agricultural products? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Daughtry I don’t think we have a definition in this bill of agricultural products. We do have what raw agricultural commodity is. I think maybe there should be some clarification there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question? If you’re raising chicken or hawks, are they agricultural products or no? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff has that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. The term commodity producer is defined in the first addition. It defines commodity producer as producer of fruits, vegetables, or other agricultural products. In the PCS, it says commodity producer is a producer of raw agricultural commodities which is defined in line 17-19. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just says fruits, vegetables, or other agricultural products. The question I had is what is other agricultural products? I know what a fruit and vegetable is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, that’s…I believe that’s in the first addition though. The PCS, the version six. It should be handed out. It defines raw agricultural commodity as any food in it’s raw or natural state. Basically any un…

Processed food. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that include hogs and chickens, the meat? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. A limitation on liability. I'm not familiar with the statute. What is the limitation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, if you meet a certain criteria, that if you, according to the, I think the bill summary provides some clarification that under the USDA Agricultural Marketing Service, or state department act employees, they inspect these farms, they certify that these farms are GAP certified, and if you're GAP certified, then when the product leaves your farm and, and you did not commit gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct, so just merely negligence which is failure to adhere to the standard, normal duty of care, you would not be liable. And I think mister Chairman there are some folks here from Advocates for Justice and perhaps others that would like to speak on this bill, and I think in opposition to this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We, what we've got is two minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman, can I follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then we'll either vote or hold this motion off. You may, you may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I guess, when I was thinking the limitation on liability, I was thinking you may mean if you produced a, let's say for instance you're raising, you had eggs and you gave, sold some eggs to your neighbor and they got infected with salmonella, are you saying there's a dollar limit on the limitation that they could sue you for? What is the, what type of the limitation on liability are you talking about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They would have to establish that you committed gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional misconduct, so merely a negligent standard would not be sufficient. So, and perhaps there are attorneys here that are better skilled at explaining that than I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Anyone else? Do I have a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman, just a point of order, we're past time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well we can't take a motion then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes we can. Since you don't want me to we'll pull the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.