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

searching for


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

House | July 30, 2014 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members, please take your seats. Visitors, please retire from the chamber. The Sergeant-At-Arms will close the doors. Members and visitors are asked to please silence all electronic devices. Members, the prayer today is going to be offered by Representative Samuelson. We would ask the members and all visitors in the gallery to please stand during the prayer and also to remain standing during the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If you would, please bow your heads with me. Lord, I rejoice that you have given us the honor and privilege of serving here today. I also rejoice that you have promised us wisdom, peace and rest when we seek your glory in your name. So now may we incline our hearts to seek not after our own interest, but after you and your glory. Then you will fill us with wisdom, peace, and the rest that we all crave. And respecting all faiths, I ask these things in the name of your precious and holy son, Jesus Christ. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr, is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, the journal for Tuesday July the 29th has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr moves the journal for July 29th be approved as written. Those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed will say no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Ratification of bills and resolutions. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Enrolling Clerk reports the following bills duly ratified for presentation to the Governor: Senate Bill 376, An Act to Allow Montgomery County Employees and the Dependents of Employees to Participate in the State Health Plan; Senate Bill 773, An Act to Implement the Recommendations of the General Statutes Commission; House Bill 1048, An Act to Amend the Selection Criteria for Adjutant General of the North Carolina National Guard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bills will be noted. Special messages from the Senate. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special message from the Senate: Mr. Speaker ?? Senate on July 28 2014 informing the house of Representatives the Senate fails to concur in Senate Bill 853, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act to Modernize the Business Court by Making Technical Clarifying Administrative Changes’. The President Pro Tempore appoints Senator Rucho, Chair, Senator Barringer, Senator Wade on this part of the Senate to confer with the like committee by your honorable body to the end that the differences arising may be solved. Respectfully, Sarah Lang, Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker resorted that a message be sent to your honorable body notifying you that pursuant to the adoption of Senate Resolution 885, a Senate Resolution electing ?? to the Board of Governors of the University of North Carolina, Senate has elected ?? to the University of North Carolina Board of Governors to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Fred ??. ?? term will begin August the 1st 2014 and will end June 30th 2015. Respectfully, Sarah Lang, Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. House will come to order. Calendar. The Chair understand the gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr, has a motion pertaining to today’s calendar. The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Chairman. I move that the House Bill 369 be referred to the Committee on Rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. Members, without objection, rule 12d is suspended. House Bill 1181. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute number 2 for House Bill 1181, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act to Modernize and Stabilize North Carolina’s Medicaid Program Through Full-Risk Capitated Health Plans to be Managed by a New Department of Medical Benefits’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I move that we not concur in the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 1181, and Mr. Speaker, may I debate the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may. The House will

come to order. The gentleman is attempting to explain the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I think I can sum it up fairly quickly. When House Bill 1181 left this chamber, it left with a united vote. It was a united vote in the Appropriations Committee and it was a united vote on the floor of this House, and Mr. Speaker, with all due humility, it was a united vote among stakeholders, patients, advocates all across this state, to move forward and make the changes that are necessary to achieve the goals that this state needs to achieve in its Medicaid program, which are very serious and that we’ve taken very seriously. Mr. Speaker, that bill has been changed I would say dramatically. Obviously it is not in any position with which the values of this chamber would be in concurrence, and so I would ask – be happy to answer any questions – and I would ask you to vote green. Vote green not to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Bladen, Representative Brisson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, Representative Dollar is absolutely right. We sent it over there with 100% support; we need to send it back with 100% support. Appreciate your support for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is Representative Dollar’s motion not to concur to the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 1181. So many favoring the motion not to concur will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and records the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion to concur is adopted. Strike that. The motion not to concur is adopted. The Senate will be so notified. House bill 1194. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 1194, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act to Make Changes to the Administration of the State Retirement Systems’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion and then debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m going to make a motion that we concur with the Senate on this bill. If you remember, this is a bill that we had, one of three retirement system bills we passed out of this House just a few weeks ago. We passed it unanimously. Senate made a few changes and then passed their version unanimously. There are four changes. Two of them are technical changes to get wording lined up. The third change is a change in date to back up the effective date from July 1st to September 1st, I guess because of today’s date, and the fourth change, the only one that’s really substantive, is originally the QEBA, the Q-E-B-A, which is excess benefit arrangement that only affects people who are so highly paid that they more than top out on the 401k plan and so forth, that plan was originally set to expire next year in 2015. This original bill would have extended it to 2017. They took that paragraph out, so we’re just going back to what would have been the normal expiration in 2015. That’s the only substantive change in the bill. I have no issue with that and would ask that we concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is Representative Collin’s motion to concur with the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 1194. So many favoring the motion will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. Representative Hall, does the gentleman wish to record on this vote? Representative Lucas? Representative Brandon’s… The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion to concur is adopted. The bill is ordered enrolled and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 883. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 883, a bill to be entitled ‘An Act to Disapprove the mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and Maintenance of Riparian Buffers Rule Adopted by the Environmental Management Commission, Direct the Environmental Management Commission to Adopt a New Mitigation Program Requirements for Protection and

The riparian will and then nice water disposal system. Justin, a North Carolina Change speaker: members of the chair neglected to raise our nurse of the day is saved in a vacuum chamber Susan Robertson is nervous right place for me is that him and him and what was that the gentleman tender presented that was rise as the gluteal newsreader. Change speaker: the gentleman has limited availability of the Change speaker: Mister Speaker, members of the house. not today. before you is a suitability three sponsored by Senator Brock. this is a request by the Department and Department meetings either. this is how the process in terms of our rule making where there was rules were put in place of Bobby ENC. there were stimulators of injection and losing letters of objection that you're actually formed the stakeholder group, a tax receipt of what may be the problem with VMC put forth. they came out with us some instances, revisions, and while this is a disapproval bill. this is a disapproval bill that I see takes a good of the actual rules were promulgated by the ENC NIC Verizon the bathroom a temporary standpoint, but allows the NCD come back and actually put in place. these rules are proposed out one thing I want to note is that this doesn't have anything to do whatsoever with the actual regulations associated with other consolidation are shipping associated with stream mitigation. I once asked to do with the actual achieving the actual regulation by way of mitigating Austrians by way of riparian buffers and things of that nature is also highly technical last part of the building has to do with bringing on innovation in suitable wastewater strategies are over some time. there's been some aspects of our statues maybe little archaic behind in terms of what the current debate as always, water, salt, the statute does bring innovation back into the picture. this figure three. three. Donna more than happy to answer any questions. members may have Change speaker: walked Travis Leslie Jonathan White. furthermore, Darius is examined, has afforded away the veil. Change speaker: thank you very much disfigurement is a small background as the concerns are wetlands mitigation, which in the past and the vehicle by which our state has sought to balance the needs to develop our state to build, create jobs and move forward while the same time preserving our water quality, and many others also contribute to move in our straightforward, I think I would agree that there's an inherent tensions there is a process that we've had in place has been perfect, but it's one that's work, which means if you're not, and this is a simplified version, but if you can deliver some wetlands, there's a process by which we could mitigate that damage by creating or maintaining preserving wetlands elsewhere in the state of Nevada process by which the private sector can actually financially benefit from doing that and create jobs to do it again. I don't think anyone on any side of the issue would say that's an appropriate process is one that, in general, has worked with some freshly happen here, though, that there's has been a behind-the-scenes quick process to absolutely rewrite those rules and it's been essentially the bid by the proverbial smoke-filled rooms. the Jennifer Weiner mentioned that ten letters of objections were received all several those who received from active folks that work in the inner as opposed granted in their private capacity as opposed to just general citizens, so it's something that, in general, the public has not been aware of in a way, regardless of the present cons of the direction that this may be taken us this will be another step in eroding public confidence in what state government does in the him them him and him is to be more customer friendly. the public is very concerned about exactly who he means is customer well in the end, it looks like he means the private sector out there when the end is all citizens of North Carolina. now all citizens of North Carolina as customers benefit regulatory gene that creates and preserve jobs for them. without a doubt, but in the end we need to recognize the day the citizens of North Carolina. our constituents are the customers and in this video is absolutely against the interests of our customers

For what purpose does the gentleman from Henderson Representative McGrady rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. to initially ask the gentleman from Pender a question [SPEAKER CHANGES]. does the gentleman from Pender yield to the gentleman from Henderson? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yes sir he yields [SPEAKER CHANGES]. as I understand the bill it requires that the EMC adopt a role significantly identical to the recommended role contained in a shareholder a stakeholder report. My question to you is were all parties of interests to this matter members of the stakeholder group? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative McGrady in terms of the stakeholder group that was formed the stakeholder group that was formed was actually looking at the way to achieve the actual the mitigation credits therefore in terms of the actual private side by way of land holders by way of the DOT stand point from the public stand point of actually having to mitigate for these credits as well as the environmental consultants that actually have to achieve the mitigation aspects from a technical stand point and receive regulatory approval from Deener so in my view it was a full fledged full circle stake holder group that's actually achieved the technical stand points of the mitigation achievement were not talking about the regulatory stand point were only talking about how to actually achieve the mitigation credits within stream mitigation. It's been said here that's its wetlands it is not its about the actual mitigation of our streams. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. does the gentleman from Pender yield to an additional question from the gentleman from Henderson? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. yes I do [SPEAKER CHANGES]. he yields [SPEAKER CHANGES]. perhaps I wasn't clear enough the question I have is were there groups particularly groups that had been involved in the EMC process for example environmental organizations and other groups not involved in the stake holder group that were now requiring the EMC to adopt its report [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative McGrady Deener was a sitting member of the stake holder group they are the body what actually oversees the regulations that are put forth and therefore it's my understanding that you had all aspects represented but if you want to name specific groups I'll be happy to comment the report is out there and it's well known to the public the actual stakeholder group that met for over 4 to 5 months to actually take out the bad that was in these rules and actually achieve the good [SPEAKER CHANGES]. to speak on the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]. the gentleman from Henderson has the floor to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I think I respect the gentleman from Pender but he obviously doesn't want to answer my question cause he knows the answer to the question the answer is no we had one group of people groups of people come together and work with the EMC to come up with its rule the department didn't like its rule there are economic interests that didn't like the rule so what does Deener do? He goes back and pulls together a stake holder group to come up with a different rule surprise surprise that it happened this is another example of our process just not being followed and I dont have any dog in this race I don't actually really have much of an opinion on the underlying issues here but this is not how we ought to be doing this the department doesn't get the answer that it wants so it pulls together a new stake holder group now we get the answer the department wants and gee were going to mandate that the new stake holder group involving essentially all of the people that have a financial interest in this are going to get what they want. I say no just vote no on this bill it's a bad bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]. for what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Glazier rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Mr Speaker to speak to the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]. gentleman has the floor to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]. thank you very much Mr Speaker my comments are going to be in the same vein but in a little different way than the previous two. You know about three weeks ago there was a bill in the judiciary committee run by Representative Jordan and Representative Jordan courageously ran that bill as I said at the time dealing with issues of workers compensation and there was a group of people who opposed that bill as I recall home builders and realtors and a number of business groups

and their argument which i agreed with despite my view that I thought Representative Jordan was right on the substance was look there has been for years a stake holders process that has been set out to deal with workers comp issues and we've done Republicans and Democrats a really good job of using that group because of the stakes that are involved in it the idea that group came together and said when we do revisions to workers comp we will do something for the plaintiffs side and something for the defense side but we've got to work together less we get into this huge pitched battle and we've avoided that and they said can you please withdraw the bill which is essentially what Representative Jordan than did so that we may get to where you want but so that the stake holders the full stake holders group can actually meet to do that and a number of us who as I said I think agreed with the policy Representative Jordan wanted to do said you know that's process matters it really does and you guys are working together we should affirm that kind of behavior and so Representative Jordan at the request of a number of people and on his own pulled his own Bill because of this exact issue and he was right and he was setting out the right way to do this and that hopefully will result in an eve better bill next year its exactly whats going on here and what Representative McGrady and what Representative Martin talked about a closed door meeting between the agency and several of its self-selected industry representatives without participation by anyone else is not a stake holders meeting it's a cabal and that's what took place here we should stop calling it and giving it the nice title that it was a stake holders meeting cause it wasn't it was a very selected group the full stakeholders meeting had been in place for 5 years 5 years prior to that and came up with the rules that probably nobody loved but everyone could live with in 2013 and because its a select small group in combination with some people in the departments that we don't like the result just as Representative McGrady said they meet without everybody else and come up now with new rule that's wrong we may end up in the same place and I'm not at all sure I understand fully the science of whether this is a bad or a good environmental effect but I am real clear that it is a horrible way to do business and we ought to stop it we ought to follow the lead that Representative Jordan and the judiciary committee did we ought to follow the lead of the five year process bring everyone back together and if these same things result great we can have the debate on whether their good or bad but we ought not be doing this and particularly this late in the session and I would encourage us on the matter of just trying to modify how we do business here to make it the right way to encourage people to meet and work out their problems and not in secret that we ought to vote no thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES]. for what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston Representative Bumgardner rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. speak on the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]. the gentleman has the floor to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES]. thank you Mr Speaker I was in the committee Friday late we debated this bill no one voted against it in the committee automatically anytime anybody has an economic interest in anything its bad and we cant have that we cant allow that and I think that we need to think about that and I would ask you to support this bill this bill modernizes something that needs to be modernized the spokespeople from Deener were there they explained what this is about and why they wanted to do it and I'd ask for your support thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES]. what purpose does the lady from Surry Representative Stevens rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. to ask question of the bill sponsor [SPEAKER CHANGES]. does the gentleman from Pender yield to the lady from Surry? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I do Mr Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES]. he yields [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Millis I was also at the meeting on Friday afternoon late when I didn't really want to be but the original rules that were being objected to here were defined as being very unclear and really unable to work with is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. that is exactly correct Representative Stevens as a matter of fact if you go line by line through the actual modifications that the steak holders made to what was actually proposed by the EMC there are mainly clarifications to make sure that it can be implemented properly and again remember now this is done by the department at request by the department so they actually have to carry out what the statutes the rules all are in terms of their policy

do you serve your clarification. the vagueness of this was really one of the ego enhancement program. there was a state agency was there to speak on as well as I fear as a whole was there back to make sure that the actual rules. I want to put in place were just clarified to make sure that nothing vague about any other aspects of it. there is nothing I was altered by way of regulation is this the way I see achievement of the bombings of this intercourse more never got to follow. Change speaker:you may have, that the lighting is the gentleman yield an additional question is Change speaker:Mister steels and leave the Change speaker:information provided here was that this was all based on the scientific research to make it clear about what we can and cannot do it. it is Change speaker:derived as a reason why be single or group was highly technical in nature because actually viewed bio engineers as well as the actual consultants involved in vaccine making sure that we can achieve all of the regulations were so yes, again is I who which he said is exactly right. this is highly technical nature and honest reason why was brought forth like also listen to answer your question is that you have similar subjects in this chamber can fully disprove what EMC did three years ago and we have no good to know what was actually going down this whole process of the chamber wants this review our rules out in a surprise, but this is actually good. it's a figure that was actually done it just provides some clarifications and things that were misunderstandings. the dicey provide some a uncertainty about how she had achieved what the NCIC promulgated. so while these objections of an razor is truly false in nature. Change speaker:the last all the Change speaker:general field of our question is certain fields Change speaker:and had anyone group person come to you about the substance of the rules being bad or is it simply the process that they felt like they were included and Change speaker: no one company out whatsoever. now the amount rules process as a matter fact, this process is something that I is and is nothing new is nothing changes. as a matter fact on this is actually chamber has unanimously and actually the same aspects of process allowed Diener, all regulatory agencies establish the stakeholder group for storm water so you will never sleep good the same as acting directly. doing here is where having regular meetings. he doesn't charged the form stakeholder groups. what would all enter Sarah is able to make sure that were actually crafting proper policy again. remember you have statutes, regulations, statutes give way to rules and roles give way to policy and policy is what the departments actually carry out the state voted route was to clarify the policy to make sure that it met the intent of the General assembly in the lobby things were actually false. what was said and I'll be happy for my son 's legal bill your later on with a few questions for August as the lady from the effort represent Harrison, Russ. did they know lady has afforded me the bill. Change speaker: thank you, Mister stipulations on the cat on seeking articulate off all process and adoption of these roles. I know my colleagues represent the grading and is your end. more than half of the sizes of the roles are problematic in office will understand the rules and even… yes, I'm not sure how they are confusing in terms of implementation, he's on it. I'm not sure that in general, similar to the process of rewriting technical roles. I think that would make a lot more sense for us to redirect via agency to conduct in whatever process involving all stakeholder son the analysis is that it does a couple things are problematic, at least the annual report that the medication is working on there and so we don't even know initially what happened after the product has been placed on Sarah eliminates the traditional on the evening of the traditional mitigation reported that the judicial oper on. I'll try him or her medication. this is not one that I cannot find mitigation inside the measure doesn't really want to do one set of losing some additional qualifications in this rules for the reasons that the star process is extremely volatile substances that argument. ninety one Change speaker: harvest those the gentleman from New Hanover representative at sunrise to pick up the gentleman has afforded a negative biggest maker of as your page on Change speaker: our passion about our river water quality, and so I look at this from a technical point of view, and I don't see any technical environmental concerns with what were proposing a new and any to go through the terminal repertory subcommittee unanimous vote, and we had a lot of questions and we had a lot of technical presentation on and on and we hasn't speakers that has some concern for the

The upsurge in the process him, yelling that the process server rally are always sometimes a little surprising that the one thing about this isn't this just as goes through the same lawmaking process that goes to the hearsay and then they are directed to try to use as much of this is possible within the ghost of religion, says she'll be public hearings, go to the row of the two whole process and if people don't like it they can do that in letters of objection against the welfare issue something to become it forever and that the issue to support format, says the (SPEAKER CHANGES) Jennifer Ashe represent or more hours in Korea be a bill sponsored this to Jennifer on the agenda for mash is it in the CEOs as in the separation she only had a question for you, by someone involved in rulemaking is, can tell each session of the level of these issues in the Taylors objections no problem whatsoever , some in the one question I do have is the rows of information through the sun July 18 and Amanda commission specifically much determined whether their statutory authority for regulation but often determine if there's any doubt that the USS array of problems with the language so my question to you this was the major gainers participation in that process symbols of the commission that they can bring up these issues AM when rather than commission has just turned specifically look at these concentrations of events and Jordan, my response that would be simply this, the good as the program is on now directed by the actual individuals begin this process have been a while back in Soviet communist regime as I can just come into the table-see how we carry out of the statutes and rules of the quality of on the NFL industry succumbed to the table is simply saw there something this is clearly this meeting and as it has resolved similar situation before the Seacliff for displaced the hashes out as the clarity that was actually needed to answer questions of the elements of failure audit of the past apartment work as a failure of those on the dollar equals review commission against reason why we're here today actually clean up the mess industries will we have this process of Rican Office for the rules, Ross said Copley and this temporary leave my project, articulated to make sure it will move into a room that when I see is a good action promise of offering for your process body and see for one of this message of hope they would represent a plane rides to them that ms afford to pay the nine MM-and, by the fact that , just in the nation from non-21 that is a very sensitive than one billion and that's not in that direction, and Western North Carolina had a two-man, and trout fishing industry , Hutson my constituents-handed, good trout fishing guide and five of the day of trout fishing package as high as thousands of my constituents and leveque a fishing boats that some of the essential issue that comes from that demand, and that they are needed, and the bandit, 9-1, is not that if you do not have trapped in a span of a couple of decades, and then back in the in-the- banana, that's a that's not the hat, I fell for the says (SPEAKER CHANGES) and Jeff Hoffman and ms or that those at the table is taken from, says Jennifer Edwards and those routes to respect the acid Representative Klein with a U.S. request a rush of me-too-heavy odds on fate of simply not right away until all your comments about how the start on the basis, that wish to use the Exe change to the issue ratios some of the 3121 five separate them, but that's coming off a distinct advantage of remedy-additional questions, 79, the office, the city section last week and subcommittee of the great hands compared the draft rules compared with axes 0.45; occurring in the way she performed at the scene you need medication thresholds change was a member of their exactly the same as they were actually from the actual EMC propose ??.......

rules to what’s actually in this stakeholder report, so I’m really confused about how you’re saying that we went from a 3 to 1 to a 2 to 1 whenever by my study over the entire interim we were here last week, that that is not the case whatsoever, and could you please clarify for the body? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I just heard that that was what it was. I think it’s gone from 3 to 2 in this provision. Am I not correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Haywood yield to an additional question from the gentleman from Pender? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My question is is that would you consider that you may not be correct? Because that is not the case. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s always… I’ll certainly consider that I’m not correct if that’s not the case. Is it not the case? Is it 3 to 2? I mean has it gone from 3 to 1 to 2 to 1 or not? I’m asking somebody. I’m not on this committee, but… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The member will suspend. Does the gentleman from Pender yield to a question from the gentleman from Haywood? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman require the member to restate his question? Or did he hear it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I heard it, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In all due respect, Representative Queen, it does not change whatsoever from the actual proposed stakeholder provisions to what was actually drafted by the EMC, and in terms of the mitigation ratios, they stay exactly the same. The only changes whatsoever is that taking it embedded within a statute and actually breaking it out into tables so it’s actually very easy to follow and read for those who actually have to comply with the regulations. So no, that is not the case. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well thank you for your clarification. To continue then? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to continue debating the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I will say this. If we were, that would be a backwards step, but I will say the point is that 80% of the pollution that have thwarted our trout streams have been stream bank erosion. That is the biggest single problem, so protecting the stream banks in the balance is what we have gotten right in western North Carolina over the last couple of decades, and we do not want to go backwards. So you’ve heard concerns about who these stakeholders were. I have real concerns that we haven’t taken these important considerations into account and I plan to vote against this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Henderson, Representative McGrady rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor too debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to clarify one or two things. Responding to the gentleman from Gaston, Mr. Bumgardner, I have no problem whatsoever with having people involved in understanding the costs and business and all of that. They have to be part of this. My problem here is that they were a significantly larger part, and we needed people that had perhaps a broader public interest. Putting that aside, I would say to the body that part of my problem here is just with the optics of things. The optics here is that this involves the Department of Natural Resources, whose Secretary was in the business of what the subject of this thing is. If there’s a time and a place for us to be particularly aboveboard, it’s in matters like this. Why go down this road? This rule, I’m not going to speak to it on substance – it didn’t come through a committee that I was on – but it doesn’t feel right at all, and I don’t see any problem with let’s pull together an appropriate stakeholder group and let’s do this right as opposed to potentially embarrassing ourselves by moving forward at this time. I urge no vote on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let me elaborate on the composition of the stakeholder group that the gentleman from Henderson talked about. It’s my understanding that there were seven members of it. Three of them were drawn from companies who do this sort of work, with a financial interest but also wit the expertise to talk about this kind of work; one was drawn from a mining company; two were appointed by the Secretary of DENR from within DENR I believe; and then one from DOT. And having chaired our Transportation Appropriations Subcommittee

The first 10 rows of data about the MTA staff for representative like you give up some members to the stakeholder groups that are members of the just-I would certainly hope like to stay courtroom that without a doubt along comes the courtroom that of the two can claim actually is fair life act is actually highly technical unity, feather and perhaps promoted to the plate to this for some folks missing expenses to the industry and these issues but did not have a financial interest in that you might also played some part of the customers to a focus that would be affected the nation this some folks that that's had their jobs, whether it's interesting to us live affected by how this might play off the ship like this-this-and then you start to have a body that looks like something that's highly technical this, and perhaps even fair and stuff you've got to this day, and those selected for one reason only decision over Stanford ever came to let that stop that stuff; (SPEAKER CHANGES) the best serve our customers to send out a map, says that a fashion that contrast to the end of the debate about those of us that closely the Bateman Levin of the bible college, is a really understand fully in the backs of some committees and heard this was my cases, unless that the money that so, stability been listening carefully one of them a completely misunderstands the provisions of the bill a second one said that the last continual regulatory agencies did a wonderful job of retaining jobs in the state would say I've never any of my constituents claim no doubt that particular own benefit, but if they would say that all city agencies, the other than that a job that's where the family says he just doesn't feel right to own a two-years and spoke about probability that was ousted fully comprehend this bill has spoken out favor the bill that's a man with the engine is not the will to the furthest action Friday get out of the question for the house is the passage of the House Committee says to (SPEAKER CHANGES) percent of the three of its activity chairman members of Lemoore, the state's to the passage of a man of those events for men and a co- branded Jordan quit the one issue of that system that is, if any that the House Committee says Cheever said that three passes a second meeting in one of the action hero for the chance of a North Carolina and further discussions, that is not a question for the house's passage of the House Committee says 2% of 83, stirring Smith – of them will say I, as opposed to saying that he needed a chance at the ISP that in the House Committee 70% of any three passes them until they return to the senate represents Holliman has since SMS 27 era and Federal aid that satisfied that this incentive for the finance committee-362659 and one act of 2040 recommended the house to talk about the competition for talent this is a first lap, says they-Mac and that mayor says Sampson rise five-footers place setting the stage of a personal friend, ms-minded and B, Salinas and lending library is still available for people if they want to come out of the stuff that cannot take them and how well the answer, sometimes even something as demanding products available thanks that may be the first art shell international hostel in this sense if that this is the life and ad members of our guys making them since they play has for the state investment in a speech at a house that's whether are good that PM two ??........

Our committee meeting in room 544, 15 minutes after the adjournment of session, to complete our agenda. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Howard would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Davie yield to the gentleman from Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, I know that you just mentioned completing our agenda, that [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s nothing new. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 763, and my question was whether anything, or any other bill beyond this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. The gentleman from Stanley, Representative Burr is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I move that the House do now adjourn, subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, introduction of bills and resolutions, and modifications to the calendar, to reconvene on Thursday July 31 at 10AM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr moves, seconded by Representative Iler, that the House adjourn, subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, introduction of bills and resolutions, and modifications to the calendar, to reconvene on Thursday July 31, 2014 at 10AM. Those in favor will say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.