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 | August 1, 2014 | Chamber | House Session Part 1

Full MP3 Audio File

House bill 366, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Conferees appointed to solve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House bill 366, a bill to entitle an act to maintain confidentiality of ?? environmental investigation at ?? operation director department. The conferees recommend the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate, Sen. Jackson, chair. Senators Brock, Bingham, Gunn, and Walters. Conferees of the House of Representatives: Rep. Dixon, chair. Representatives Langdon, Lewis, Bowles, and Brisson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Dixon, please- Rep. Langdon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We had a really good vote yesterday and a very good debate and I encourage you to support the following bill and appreciate your vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is whether or not to adopt the conference report for House bill 366, all in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote "no", the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 88 having voted in the affirmative, 17 in the negative, the House has adopted the conference report for House bill 366, the bill will be enrolled, the Governor will be notified. House bill 272, the clerk will read. And incidentally, on 366, the governor will be notified by special message. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the President of the Senate, the Speaker of the House. Conferees appointed to resolve the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House bill 272, a bill to entitle an act to provide that the Division of Motor Vehicles hearing on license revocation as a result of driving while impaired, ignition interlock violation be held in the licensee's county of residence. The conferees recommend that the Senate and the House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Sen. Harrington, Chair, Sen. Rabin. Conferees for the House of Representatives: Rep. Stam, chair, Representatives Tim Moore, Hagar, Iler, and Hall. Duane Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Brian Brown, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I couldn't quite get to the button on House bill 366, I'd like to be recorded as voting "aye" please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting "Aye" on the motion to adopt the conference report. Rep. Daughtry, please state your purpose . [SPEAKER CHANGES] The same request. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting "aye". Rep. Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To move for adoption of the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is- the motion is now properly before us, the gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, the first, I think 7 sections of this is really an agency bill that I think came out of the joint transportation oversight committee, and if you have specific questions on that I may refer to one of our conference committee members, Rep. Iler or maybe Torbett. Section 8 is new, but actually was in our ?? reform bill, was suggested by Rep. Millis, currently where right of way is taken, the property owner is entitled to density credits, but they're never told they are. And they don't know about it. So this requires the local government to tell them what they're entitled to as a result of a right of way dedication. Then the final I think add-on provision is section 9a, and it deals with digital dispatching services from the revenue law study committee, and I'd have to defer to someone else to explain that. But I think we passed that before. So unless you have questions, I move for adoption of this conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the adoption, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, this again is part of the effort that we've taken with DOT/DMV, just to bring them up to a level of modernization, dragging them kicking and screaming into the 21st century. And the outcome is that the expedition of processing for the citizens of North Carolina. I think there's no one in this chamber that hasn't had issues

..DMV through DoT and everyone’s focused on that and this will, again, add to what we’ve already done to help improve that entire department. Thank you very much. Vote green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the motion to adopt the conference report for House Bill 272. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 110 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the motion to adopt the conference report for House Bill 272 has passed. The bill will be ordered enrolled and sent to the Governor by special message. House Bill 1054. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the president of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, conferees appointed to resolve the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 1054, a bill to be entitled An Act to Authorize the Town of Spindale and the Cape Fear Public Utility Authority to Attach Personal Property, Garnish Wages, and Place Liens on Certain Real Property to Collect Unpaid Fees. The conferees recommend the Senate and House of Representatives adopt this report. Conferees to the Senate Senator Hise, chair, Senator Goolsby and Apodaca. Conferees of the House of Representatives: Representative Hager, chair, Representative Catlin, Davis and Tine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the conference report for House Bill 1054. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 111 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House has passed the motion to adopt the conference report for House Bill 1054. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the Governor by special message. Senate Bill 853. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the president of the Senate, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, conferees appointed to resolve the difference between the Senate and the House of Representatives on Senate Bill 853. The bill has been entitled An Act to Modernize Business Court. The conferees recommend the Senate and the House adopt this report. Conferees for the Senate: Senator Rucho, chair. Senator Barrigner and Wade. Conferees to the House of Representatives: Representative Daughtry, chair. Representative Tim Moore, Bryan, Stevens and Reives. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that we concur in Senate Bill 853 as the Business Court Modernization. As most of you know, the Business Court in North Carolina is very successful. It has been well received by the business community as a place they can go with certainty and have their disputes taken care of and they can understand those very complex cases, and many times are involving a lot of money. This court is a place they can go and be confident that they’ll get a fair hearing. Claims like security law, antitrust laws, state trademark law, intellectual property law, internet and tax law disputes are just some of what the Business Court takes up. This sets out what cases are eligible to be tried in the Business Court and it also, this conference report also has a way for a corporation to create a holding company and this is a new thing for us. It’s already been done in Delaware and this is what the business community wants and I don’t know of anybody who is opposed to either the Business Court part of the bill or the holding company part of the bill so I recommend that we concur in the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to adopt the conference report for Senate Bill 853. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 111 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House has passed the motion to adopt the conference report for Senate Bill 853. The Senate will be so notified.

Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, having voted on the prevailing side, I move that House bill 1133, that the motion not concur to House bill 1133, which was adopted previously in this House, previously i believe a couple days ago, which is the technical corrections bill, be reconsidered, and that I would be recognized to debate the motion once. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is properly before us, the gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and members. The reason for this motion, as you recall, the technical corrections bill that we did, we passed a bill, we sent it over to the Senate, the Senate took what as a good bill and made it a less good bill and sent it back, we voted not to concur with that because they took out several provisions that were in the House bill that we wanted to keep. The things they added really weren't a big deal, that no one really seemed to have any heartburn with what was added. But the issue where there were several things that we wanted, that the House wanted that were taken out. So the dilemma is that the House is left with is, given the current state of affairs, is do we adopt the technical corrections bill if this motion passes. Do we bring the technical corrections bill before us, simply adopt the Senate's version of the technical corrections bill which fixes a lot of the technical problems that are out there. You know, the downside in doing that of course is you los your leverage to ask for the additional things that we wanted in the bill. We've reviewed it, there are probably about three other matters or so that we wanted in that bill, that we can- that 2 of those have been addressed in other matters. Matter of fact, some of the provisions we wanted were either in the budget or when the couple other bills that we've already dealt with, so the list got narrowed down. And the concensus was at this point, that- Anyway, the concensus very simply was that we could probably get something done, and this would be better to adopt this than nothing at all. So I would ask the body, body support I believe Mr. Speaker wanted to debate the motion also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would recommend actually the reconsideration be adopted, I think that a number of the provisions that some people had concerns about on the House technical corrections are out, I think most of it truly is agreed upon in technical corrections, it doesn't mean somebody might not have an issue with one provision, but it looks pretty clean, and I would recommend because it fixes a lot of things that really should be fixed that we adopt the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion. If not, the question before the House is the motion by Rep. Moore to reconsider the vote on Senate committee substitute to House bill 1133. All in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote "no", the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative, 3 in the negative, the motion passes. Now the Senate committee for House bill 1133 is properly before us. Rep Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move the House do concur with the Senate committee substitute for House bill 1133. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the question to concur in the Senate committee substitute for House bill 1133. All in favor vote "aye", all opposed vote "no", the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 99 having voted in the affirmative, and 11 in the negative, the motion to concur in the Senate committee substitute for House bill 1133 has passed. The Senate will be so notified. The chair stands corrected. Actually it will be enrolled and sent to the Governor by special message. Rep. Moore,

on House Bill 1224. The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that House Bill 1224 be removed from today’s calendar and referred to the Committee on Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair will take a recorded vote on the motion. The motion is to re-refer the conference report for House Bill 1224 to the Committee on Rules, Calendar and Operations of the House. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 102 having voted in the affirmative and 8 in the negative, the motion passes. Senate Bill 763. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 763, a bill to be entitled An Act to Make Technical and Clarifying Changes Various Revenue Laws; To Modify the Renewable Energy Tax Credit; and to Modify and Extend the Historic Rehabilitation Tax Credit. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The...we had a good vote on this yesterday and there were several additions that were made from the original version, I just hope that we could support it again today. Most of these changes are critical, they came from the Department of Revenue so it’s things that we really need to have in place immediately so I’m hoping we can pass this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? Representative Hager, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is there any way we could have this bill displaced just for a few minutes? I’m preparing an amendment for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will. There are no other items on the calendar, so that will have the effect of putting us at ease. If there are any members intending to have an amendment on this bill, the chair will limit any submission amendments to the next ten minutes. 3:45. Ladies and gentlemen, the chair may, before everybody steps away from their seats, a couple of things. One, the calendar tomorrow, we were thinking 9 AM. The chair understands that there is a ceremony down the street with the Governor, I think, at 9:30 related to our World War II veterans and commemorating the war. That’s at 9:30. The chair is inclined to move the calendar up so that members who choose to participate in that will be able to do that. The only other alternative would be to move it back to 10 AM so the chair, given the choices, we have 10 AM or 8:30 AM. The chair would ask you to turn your light on if you prefer 8:30. If you will turn off all your lights so we will not lock up the machine. Apparently we’ve got a little glitch here. The clerk would say it would be better just to record the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There’s a point of parliamentary inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would an amendment to 8 AM be in order? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you’re on the Rules Committee, probably not because there will be a Rules meeting before the 8:30 AM. Ladies and gentlemen, just in full disclosure, it’s the intent of the chair to take a vote. I think the chair stands corrected, it appears as though Representative Boles originally had 9:30 as the time, so we will back to 9 AM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair was informed that it was at 9:30, we were trying to accommodate that. Representative Jeter, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to change my vote on 1133 from no to aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye.

Rep. Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I believe I hit the wrong button, I'd like to be recorded on House bill 366 as voting "no". [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting "no". What the chair was going to start out to say was if there are any members here who wish or had plans for points of personal privilege, that may be a good use for our time as we're having the amendment prepared for Senate bill 763. If there are points of personal privilege or other items the members would like to state- Rep. Boles, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. The- at 10:30 tomorrow morning the state of North Carolina launches the state's official 4-year-long centennial commemoration of WWI, and there will be a relaying event at the state capitol grounds. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Pierce, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask you a question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did you make it clear on what time we were starting? ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] 9 AM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the Chair- the point being unclear is very well taken. Thank you for the question on clarification. Rep. Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House- Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the House, more than 2 decades have passed since I have began my service as a member of this body and my tenure is about to end. I want to first of all thank the citizens of Guilford county for allowing me to represent them here in the General Assembly and in the elected positions that I've held. I've appreciated their support and I have enjoyed being their representative, and I look forward to continuing my service with the citizens of North Carolina away from Raleigh. My thanks to my family, my children and grandchildren, my mom, who's 89, for their sacrifices and allowing me to share my time with North Carolina's people. I also thank my last workplace of Bennett College. I leave here as the longest serving Democratic woman in the House and in the benefit, and the tutelage from the longest serving member in the General Assembly, my seatmate, Rep. Michaux. I thank him for his mentorship and his friendship as well. And my current leader as well, and Mr. Speaker, I thank you. I also want to thank the many I have served with, some who are still here, and some who are no longer here for various reasons, including the wonderful staff and the L.A.s who serve my office. The many lobbyists who I've had the privilege of learning from and working with. My time here has taught me to value and appreciate hard work. It's reinforced my belief that service is indeed the rent that we pay for living on this earth. And I've tried to keep my rent paid up, and I've worked to be the voice of citizens throughout my district and state who often are not heard. Serving here has taught me the value of friendships and partnerships, and I've made many, and I've lost many close friends too over these decades as well. This can be a very averse, sometimes complex environment. I remember long hours, Rep. Michaux and the appropriations room upstairs and LOB, trying to get back to Greensboro to teach my classes at Bennett College, which is a college. I remember bright moments too as we celebrate new babies, and grandchildren, and members' birthdays and holidays, and historic events as well like hat day, and ??, and I thank you all for participating in that. But serving in this House has taught me to value the lives of all of North Carolina's people, especially the least of these. It's a wonderful institution, and as an elected person charged to do the people's work, I hope that you will always remember that doing the right thing is always right. It's not easy all the time, It's not popular all the time, but I've learned a lot from many of you. Some times what to do, and other times I've learned what not to do. So I'd like to think that as an educator of more than 4 decades, I'd like to think that you learned a little bit from me as well. I've had the pleasure of sponsoring and working on many legislative initiatives that I hope have improved the quality

...quality of life for the citizens. And I pray, as you continue to do this work, that you will remember that it matters not only how we treat each other, but how we treat our citizens who need and depend on us. We can’t solve all of the problems for all of the people all of the time, but we must always try to extend our reach beyond our grasp. The late Maya Angelou reminds us how delicate those we serve are. She said that people will forget what you did. People will forget what you said. But they will never forget how you made them feel. It’s been an honor and it’s been and it’s been my pleasure to serve with each of you. I thank God for this unique opportunity and I wish for each of you, Godspeed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To inquire of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Speaker, to Representative Pierce, an inquiry of the chair. Just want to know about the schedule for tomorrow. What I need to come prepared to still at least leave Sunday for church. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The session will start at 9 AM. The only matter that may be on the calendar tomorrow, or maybe two, would be the third reading of the Senate Bill 744, the Appropriations Act of 2014. It’s the intent of the chair to limit debate on that bill. I would prefer we allocate time and we will go two thirds of the time, or some reasonable proportion to the minority caucus, but it’s the intent of the chair to take that vote before 10 AM. That’s at least the plan now based on the items that we have on the calendar. It is the intent of the chair to adjourn by 10:20 AM so that those members wishing to participate in the World War I wreath laying down the street will be able to get there on time. Representative Blackwell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’d like to request permission to change my vote on House Bill 366 from yes to no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted no. Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moment of personal privilege, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t write speeches. Everybody knows that I just get up and talk, and I didn’t write one for this moment here. As a lot of emotions come down on me because I’ve been thinking about what I was going to say to you guys and I could never really figure out what I wanted to say because it’s like, you never know when it’s going to end because it keeps going. You have to think about different things. I will say this, that when I first got here I didn’t know what to expect. I was looking at an article that was written about the new cream of the crop and I remember that the biggest thing that I wanted to work on, and I remember I was...I told them is they were wanting to know about a bunch of issues and how I felt about issues, but the biggest issue for me was stability and that’s what they wrote. And I thought that...and this paper, it said that I didn’t think that the biggest threat to our country wasn’t a nuclear Iran or Korea or any of the things that we talk about, but I thought the biggest threat to our country was the fact that we have parties that can’t get along and people that can’t work together. I am proud of the fact that when we got together that at least for the experiences that I have, that we were able to live up to that. We have disagreement and we’re going to have disagreement because come from different reference points and we have different constituencies. I understand that. But I do want people to understand that my whole goal was not necessarily to...and people are still on this day as I leave, still confused about why I’m here. Why, Speaker Tillis, who’s one of the most wonderful people I’ve ever met, would make such a comment…

But it is not… never was I here to be a Democrat, and never was I here to be opposition to the Republican Party. I was only here for one reason, and that was because I have a constituency that is the least of these and needed a voice that was loud and clear, and I could not convolute that voice with political rhetoric, or else the same thing that had been happening to them for 50, 60 years would continue to happen to them as long as I can convolute the conversation with political rhetoric. I still don’t engage in it. I’m not going to engage in it today and I will not engage in it tomorrow because it is political rhetoric that can have you have 50 straight years or more of people still living in poverty with no change whatsoever. You cannot, folks, concentrate on problems for that long and they don’t get fix. You can fix problems if you come together and be able to work through it, but take the political rhetoric out of it. There are things that we witness every single day – we watch it, we see it go down, and we still will vote for policies or vote for systems that really, really doesn’t work for people that we are here to work the most. This budget that we’re talking about every single year, it usually deals with people that are the least of these. We have to take care of them, and I tell people we already spend the money. We spend the money. You have to spend it anyway, so why don’t we spend it in an efficient manner that will make sure that we can ?? the biggest capacity to make sure that we move people from one place to the next? That would be the goal if you’re going to spend the money, and so for you in this body to continue to do the incredible work that we do, and it’s hard, I want you to look at the fact that if you want to change it, it can be changed. People do it every day. People have moved every single day, and one of the things that I talk about on my campaign and that I would love for you guys to remember this by, is that your reality is not your destiny, and we all have our different realities, and in my community there are different realities that I have to face. I have people who are going to wonder where their next five dollars is going to come from, and I have people that suffer from drug addiction, and I have people that suffer from obesity, and I let them all know, that’s your reality; it doesn’t have to be your destiny. And folks, the same, same, same principle applies to this body. The reality is is that we have a Senate that might not cooperate. The reality is is that we have ideological differences that might tear us apart. The reality is is that we continue to have conversations that are outside of systems and not necessarily in systems, but that’s our reality; it never has to be our destiny. God has given us great things and given us the ability to be destined to be great people, but as we sit here in this leadership position, and it is an honor, I tell people it’s the biggest honor I’ve ever had in my life. It’s the hardest thing I’ve ever done, it’s the greatest thing I’ve ever done, but as we look at that from the position of 120 lawmakers for all of the rest of these people, understand the power that you have to create change. Understand the power that you have to create change within your constituency, to motivate them to be better than they were yesterday because you were. I love the fact that the Speaker talks about my independence, and I would like for all of us to be able to have the same independence. I understand that no one in this body – this is the policy I always took – no one in this body has to represent my constituency but me. Anybody gets mad at me, come to my district and tell them your name. They won’t know who you are, so it doesn’t really matter if you’re yelling at me about that. So and the same goes for your district. Represent your district. It doesn’t matter who’s yelling at you. It doesn’t matter if someone disagrees with you. You represent your district, your people. They will be better because of it and you will be better because of it. I am proud of the fact that no one can yell at me from the back and tell me how to vote. Everybody knows that’s the truth, and it will always be the truth no matter what position I serve in. there’s only one people I look at, and that’s my constituency, and that might make some people mad, but that’s just the way it is because none of these people have to vote for me except my constituency, and that’s it, and that’s the only people I answer to, but for your guys, I want you guys to remember this from me, not only that your reality isn’t your destiny, but I also want you to understand that don’t look at me as the guy that only supported education reform or the guy that was the LGBT guy or the guy that was the Democrat that crossed lines, but for the sake of this, I want you all to remember me as your friend because you will all be, always be remembered

For me, and for my friends. I have enjoyed each and every one of you. I have a story probably from each and every one of you that I can laugh about and that we've had fun with. And the biggest thing that I've enjoyed in this body is the camaraderie and the friendships that we've all been able to develop. I think we have the best clerk in the history of the United States of America, and I'm so proud of having been able to serve under her leadership also. And I think that our staff is incredible. When I first got here, I was looking at bills and said I can't write like that. And I don't understand what's on these bills. And it was very, very comforting for me to understand that staff did it. They're incredible staff. They will stay up all night long. They will take the most ridiculous bill and make it a bill, even though it's ridiculous. And so they do all of that work and I love the staff for what they do. Down to my janitors who make sure that they open up my office because I lost my key the first day and have not seen it since. [LAUGHTER] And they open my doors every morning, so this has been an incredible, incredible experience. I love each and every one of you. You guys have made this the best experience of my life. I have nothing but good things to say about all of you. Anybody asks me about the North Carolina General Assembly, I tell them it's the best place I've ever had the opportunity to be, and I wish all of you the best. The best, best. And all of you, God bless you. Godspeed. And thank you so much for being everything to me. [APPLAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, I think your time was just about to expire when you made the comment about a clerk, and somehow the clock got reset. [LAUGHTER] You got a little extra time. Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, to I think, attempt to follow that with a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm one of those who will not be back. In the last, Representative Brandon's right. The last couple weeks have been some really goofy emotions racing through me from time to time. Let me tell you something about this body. I've been here ten years. I looked at my 05 composite picture the other day. I had hair then. [LAUGHTER] 88 of the people in that photo are not here now. 88 of the 120. Several of those seats have switched out more than once. I know one seat in particular I can remember has switched out 4 different times so what I'm telling you is I've seen a lot of folks come and go. And they've come and they've gone for various reasons. And quite sadly, we've experienced a couple of those reasons during this session because 11 people that I've served with are dead. But why'd I tell you all this? I tell you because I have memories of each and after I'm gone, maybe you'll remember me. Thank you. [APPLAUSE]

Representative Cotham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, mister Speaker. Inquiry of the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady may state her inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker, just thinking about Marcus Brandon and the fact that he's leaving, I was wondering if we had any extra clocks around the general assembly that we could give him on his way out because he's never been able to be on time to anything and maybe that might help him going forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cotham, I'm almost certain he'd lose it before he got out of the chamber. Representative Rodney Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I am new to this chamber, somewhat new, but I remember, I, I'm gonna speak about my friend, Representative Brandon. When I first came here for a meeting with miss Adams for the legislative black caucus, I was coming from Charlotte on the train. So this young man got on at Greensboro to back, I was up at the front. And so some way we started talking when we kinda met each other in the middle. I said, well yeah, he said, I said where you going man. Well, I'm going to, I'm going to Raleigh. I said, what me too! I said, he said, well what do you do? He said well I'm in the general assembly, this is my first term. I said this is my first term too, sir. So he said well, my name is Marcus Brandon. I beat an incumbent. I said well, my name is Rodney Moore. I beat an incumbent! And so we'd been friends ever since. And so Marcus, I just want to say congratulations to you, I know that you have an election coming up to be Mayor of High Point and I'm proud of you for that. But also, we're gonna have to go to Joseph A. Banks and get you, get you geared up to be a successful candidate for the mayor of High Point. But let me just say, I mess, I pick with Marcus all the time. Marcus is my friend. We don't agree on everything, but one thing that we agree on is that we have mutual love and respect for one another as human beings and as God's children and so, godspeed my friend, and we'll see each other soon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman the ice cream was provided by our dairy farmer and colleague Nathan Ramsey, and he's also worried about it becoming milk, and so if any of the rest of you would like some ice cream before it's carted out, you can get some in the back of the chamber. And Nathan, thank you for your generosity. Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Throughout the mundane, mister Speaker, but based on us coming back tomorrow morning, can you give us some idea as to what we do in terms of adjournment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The, the chair and various members including Representative Moore are working on an adjournment resolution. The chair does not anticipate receiving the adjournment resolution that was sent forth by the Senate. So, we will most likely have an adjournment resolution tomorrow to send to the Senate. What the, tomorrow effectively represents the end of session. The, the chair will be directing legislative services and all staff to move to part time status, more or less adjourned status on Monday with respect to staff policies, et cetera. There is a possibility if the Senate does not take up the resolution either out of the skeleton session that they will have tomorrow or in a session that they will have by constitution next week then we could have skeleton sessions up at least until the point of the veto window for the Governor which is ten days, about ten days out from the bill that will pass tomorrow. But the chair is hopeful that we will have an adjournment resolution to a date certain that would minimally take up the Medicaid reform bill in November. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a follow up. Based on what I've heard today, we don't have to worry about a veto situation from what I understand. And that's why I was reading the question because I knew that folks were looking at, you were looking at the ten days out and whether or not we were gonna adjourn, we were gonna adjourn to a date certain or sign and die. That, that was what a lot of folks were wondering about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, Representative Michaux. There are a couple of other bills that are pending that are in possession of the Governor, and

we're waiting on a determination. If it turns out that there is a delay with respect to the Senate and the House working out an adjournment resolution to today certain and it may very well be that the time will have passed the governor would have taken action on the bills that could potentially be vetoed and that we would simply adjourn to the November Medicaid Reform session. But the chair would encourage those of you, for the purposes of next week, to consider it acquiesced session, we've directed all the members of the caucus to no longer take their per diem and that the legislative assistants and everyone else will be moving to a off-session employment status in terms of hours. Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. speaker, and members of the House. It is August 1st, 2014 and as Representative Boles has indicated there is some sort of ceremony tomorrow but this day marks, this day 100 years ago the world was plunging headlong into the maelstrom of World War. By now, I think, all the various countries had mobilized and I think August 2nd is the day some of them started declaring war on one another and in the last year, leading up to this centennial, I've read two books on the beginning and I still, to this day, cannot tell you what the fight was about. There were blunders by the political leaders of the day, there was just pride and boasting by some of the political leaders of the day and there's still lessons there for us. And really, we're still in the post World War I era in the world, some of the problem areas of the world today, the problem started in the aftermath of that world war and, really, World War II was just a continuation of World War I and the carnage was on a scale, at this point people were celebrating and cheering the beginning of a war and within, by the end of the month of August tens of thousands already laid dead because the tactics of the last war were used in the beginning of World War I and the technology of killing had advanced greatly and men were just mowed down. Open charging, cavalry charges became a thing of the past because you can't charge cavalry through machine guns and massed artillery. Just tens, hundreds of thousands lay dead. World War II, just hundreds of million, probably 100 million, at least, died as a result of the beginning of that war. Diseases spread, the great flu pandemic of 1918 and it's just sobering to think of people in high political office having tremendous responsibility for the direction of their nations and we just need to reflect on this as the centennial goes on and try to learn lessons where we can and it's just an important milestone in history. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Following my good friend, John Blust, I'd just like to add something that did come out as a result of the war to end all wars. Of course that didn't work out that great, did it? But something we did learn, and we'll take it to November, 1963, World War I, the basic thought process is that it began with the assassination of Franz Ferdinand. We had an assassination November '63 that had not been from lessons learned from the beginning of World War I we could have very well have entered into another world war because of the leadership of a country that was, at that time, was just torn as to what to do. But because we followed our history, because we've learned from our history and we study our history, that did not occur. And thank you for bringing that up, Representative Blust. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair the ask, is Captain Andrew Upshaw in the gallery? Ladies and gentlemen, Captain Andrew Upshaw, U.S. Army. Captain Upshaw is an Iraq veteran who recently completed a tour as a Military Intelligence Company Commander. Captain Upshaw, thank you for your service. [APPLAUSE]

I think that we have the amendments prepared and are prepared to take Senate Bill 763. The Bill is now properly before us, it’s already been read. Representative Floyd just to anticipate an inquiry we have 4 amendments. Representative Hager is recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hager moves to amend the bill page 17 lines 4 and 5 by inserting between the lines the following language to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This is an amendment that we put in twice before now and we only ran one bill, it was a [??] of the House Bill 1224 for Representative Presnell J MAC for the western part of the state for Evergreen and if Representative Presnell wants to add Mr. Speaker, I’d be happy to have her tag along. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The is lady is recognized debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is the Dream Act Provision that we really need for Haywood County. I’m certain that Representative Queen and I are both on board with this and so is Senator Davis, so I would appreciate your vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, we have passed through this body a couple of times, this provision. It’s very helpful expand to the natural gas to the number one employer west of Ashe [??] outside of Harris Casino, I guess, the number one industrial employer, a 100 year old industry, Evergreen Paper. So, I please ask for your support once again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is to passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Hager to the House Committee Substitute number 2 of Senate Bill 763. All in favor vote Aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will allow the machine to record the vote, 98 having voting in affirmative, 11 in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Iler is recognized to send forth an amendment, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler moves to amend the bill on page 17, lines 4 and 5 by inserting between the lines, language to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair apologizes. The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have about 10 minutes to read my own amendment. I understand that the just of the amendment is like Representative Presnell was saying J [??] funds that were in 1224 and the [??] fund which was actually asked for by the Governor and the Secretary would be included in this. I ask for your support, glad to answer any questions and again, my 10 minute reading of this. This is an industry of 500 million investment and over a thousand jobs is waiting word on what’s going to happen to these funds before they make a decision. In our county, I share with Representative Hamilton and with Senator Raven and she may or may not want to speak on it. I see some other lights on, Representative Hamilton might have something to say about this also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Iler will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] With great trepidation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s actually going to be a friendly question, but thank you Mr. Speaker. I’m trying to read fast too and I know the job catalyst money as I recall was in the Conference Report. Can you just explain what this does to that provision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you repeat the last part of the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The job catalyst money as I recall was in the Conference Report of the budget we just passed and part of this is labeled job catalyst. Could you just explain what this provision does to the Conference Report provision we just passed on job catalyst? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, I may be able to answer that question. It actually produces the funding for that purpose, without this the money that has been allocated would be appropriated for other purposes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s about what I was going to say. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the House. Representative Iler explained to you a little bit about the situation with the

it's fun it's really important for job creation and have this tool in the toolbox for the secretary, especially in southeastern North Carolina. I urge you to support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the House, let's see. August the 1st, and we want to spend another $36 million here, I'm having passed out to you a article from the Southern Economic Journal of 2004, which empirically analyzes this question. And all I'm gonna do is just read the abstract, it's like 3 sentences so if you'll bear with me. The entire premise of this type of project is that it produces increased net income to that region. Now, it doesn't. This has been examined many times by economists, and this particular one comes out of the University of Tennessee. The sighting of a large, new firm is often presumed to give rise to significant and economic tax benefits to the community of location. This presumption serves as the basis for the granting of lucrative economic development incentives to footloose business. This article examines whether large global firms generate significant net benefits for the region of location. And here's the conclusion: The results show that large firms fail to produce significant net benefits for their host communities, calling into question the high stakes bidding war over jobs and investment. Now many of you all just won't believe that, some of you will think if you can appear at a ribbon cutting that you actually helped produce the jobs that will be there. But I'm almost glad that Rep. Iler presented this, because many of you were led to believe in 1244, 1224, that that job catalyst fund will somehow for people all over the state, tier 1, tier 2, whatever, but no we find out of course it's for particular projects in a particular place and like all other incentives, almost none of it's going to tier 1 or tier 2 counties or locations for other reasons. So in a sense of course this doesn't matter at all because this bill is going nowhere, there's no Senate to receive it, there's things in this bill that they hate, so that's why my speech is going to be very short today. But I just think that you can show your common sense by voting no on this amendment, just to get used to doing it. Rejecting the siren calls of the people who are just bad at economics. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Millis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to see if Rep. Stam would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On page 1 of this bill, lines 27 through 31, it says that if the total cost of the project to the state outweighs the benefits as a result of an award from the Job Catalyst fund under sub part D, the committee may disregard the Job Catalyst Fund award in determining whether the grant is appropriate for the project. My question to you is that does this mean that if the cost to the state are more than the benefits to the state, they can back out all of the actual incentive which could go to capital improvements, just not public infrastructure, in order to determine whether the award is suitable? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Millis, that's one of the most hilarious parts of the amendment and also the previous bill. They have these models by Professor Walden, cost benefit analysis, but then they say "We're going to disregard this money as part of the cost." It would be sort of like an equation, e=MC squared, but for the purpose of our trying to figure out the speed of light we're going to disregard the e. It's crazy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I would very much like to support this amendment, but I'm really struggling with it at this point because these are 2 more incentive bills: One a brand new one, one in addition of $14 million to an existing one. That seemed to be inconsistent with our

votes regarding incentives in this state, so I’m really grappling with what it is I’m going to do. Haven’t really made a decision, it’ll be a split-second decision, but I’d like to remind everybody in this body that this particular amendment creates a new economic development fund in the state of North Carolina. I offer that for your consideration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I read this, I see that we’re looking at 36 million dollars, and earlier this session, I filed with some other primary sponsors a bill to try to restore some of the medical tax credits for senior citizens, which we have not been able to find the money for. The fiscal note for that was 30 million dollars to be able to restore those tax credits to those senior citizens. To take this money and give it to companies that are bribing us away from our senior citizens in my judgment is morally wrong. I cannot support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tim Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members, we’ve been debating the notion of incentives for years. We’ve been debating them both when I’ve been in the minority and when I’ve been in the majority, and when I first came and when you talk about incentives just in an abstract world, they seem unfair in a lot of ways. Why would you give a tax break to a company to locate to an area that you aren’t giving to everyone? The reality is until the federal government does something, until the federal government says State A can’t do that with State B on that, that’s going to happen. There may be challenges in the federal courts on it, but the problem is, and we’ve seen this, North Carolina lost… My area of the state lost 17 hundred jobs for a project that they were working on for a wheel-manufacturing company just across the line in South Carolina because South Carolina offered better tax incentives. Now the thing to understand in that is in what this is, it’s only less tax paid. If they don’t… if the company doesn’t pay any tax, they don’t get money. It’s not a perfect thing, but if we’re going to be competitive, if we’re going to actually show that we’re serious about trying to lure the jobs, what else are we going to do? Those of you who represent tier 1 counties, tier 2 counties particularly where the unemployment has spiked up very high, have seen the textural mills leave, people getting laid off of their jobs, and one of the bright spots in my area has been having some incentives to keep those companies from going across the state line. Now what I hope – what I hope is that eventually as we continue through tax reform that we won’t need it, that the broad overall tax policy of this state will be competitive enough so those states can locate here, but right now if we’re going to compete with South Carolina, we’re going to compete with other states in the region, some of whom are red states, conservative states, we’ve got to be ready to compete, otherwise we’re going to see jobs go to Tennessee, we’re going to see jobs go to South Carolina, and I would just… When I’ve been there feet on the ground, seeing what’s happening, meeting with these companies, actually talking with these folks, it’s not theory, and I want to see us continue to work forward to actually try to lower the overall tax burdens, try to pull all the tax relief we’ve done, but I do think we need to give the Department of Commerce and the governor the tools they need to be able to recruit industry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I was torn on the original bill, 1224. I pretty much said no, I can’t support all the stuff that was in it, but there’s three things that came out in the way of amendments on this bill that are positive, and let me give you just a little bit of what little I know. JDIG, for example, goes predominantly to larger jobs, larger account jobs, like maybe 500, 800 thousand, that kind of thing. I received a text; it said this JDIG and JMAC could possibly account for four thousand jobs. Four thousand jobs. None of them are coming to my area, but there is one thing I’ve known and always known, is that if Rocky Mount or if Blowing Rock is negatively impacted economically, it’s going to negatively

Impact Gaston County. I know that as a fact there’s one state working cohesively to try to attract jobs. Here, let me tell you a little horizon. I, I try to think over the hill. Let me tell you what I know. I know down where George Cleveland lives and Phil Shepard lives, I know they had the thing called United States Military. By all accounts their downsizing to pre-nineteen forty levels. By all accounts on top of that, there’s gonna be a brack/g. Will we win? Will we lose with a brack/g? Ladies and gentlemen we are body movers, we’re people movers. We’re not the industrial military complex that Eisenhower spoke about. We’re body movers. When you downsize to pre-nineteen forty levels, you, you, you reduce troop strength. You reduce the personnel inside the military. Now George and the good Army guy back there might be able to tell you for each soldier on the field, how many additional troops are required as support? Four? Five? Six, somewhere in the military? It’s estimated that if we go through all the downsizing that’s been talked about. I can’t say it’s gonna happen. I can’t say it’s not gonna happen. But I’ve seen it based on historical past numbers. There’s a possibility down where George is and where Phil lives, out on the coast, you might lose up to 16,000 jobs in North Carolina. 16,000 personnel gone. Gone. Poof. Now as we near net new job growth which we haven’t been there in years, we’re nearing net new job growth. Net new. Haven’t heard that term in probably six years. As we near it, it is my humble opinion that we need to raise the cap on JDIG to give commerce the opportunity to bring in as much as she possibly can. As much as she possibly can for North Carolina, knowing that there very possibly could be that huge loss somewhere down the road. And with that also being said everyone in here should be fighting and talking to our members in D. C. and our future members in D.C. to not let that happen. This is a catalyst for job growth. Is it cash money? Is it money? Is it coming from the taxpayers? Absolutely. And when we our complete tax reform package down to the point it is replaced with an adequate, that it replaces adequately the incentive packages, then we can get rid of the incentive package. It doesn’t today. Just bear in mind what’s, what’s coming. Just, just think what’s coming. I trust, I hope that you would give Department of Commerce a non-appropriated amount simply letting her raise on JDIG so she can run like the wind and bring everything she can possibly in the way of job creation to the State of North Carolina. Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the bill’s sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment’s sponsor is Representative Iler. Representative Iler, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now I’ve not made a decision on this bill whatsoever but I did have a question because the numbers seem to don’t add up. I’m looking in the budget. And the budget has allotted $20 million. With this amendment will make it 36. Where’s the other 16 coming from? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s a good question. I don’t know if we staff in the room that can help. But this is part of the JDIG funds I believe. JDIG section. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’ll come from JDIG? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ‘Mam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ‘Kay. Thank you. [CROSSTALK] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the motion’s sponsor and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you Representative Iler. I was struck by your comments that this would produce 1,000 jobs and that the commerce secretary would be essential to that. If we pass this that would happen. Is there any requirement? It. Is there any requirement that if we pass and fund this $20 million that the commerce secretary is required to spend it on that particular project you referenced to create those jobs you referenced? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t think we can require an executive branch official to do that. But I believe that is the intent that I have heard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. To speak on the motion

The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Speaker and, economic development is a tough thing and people talk about picking winners or losers and that's always a tough debate. This is a situation that appears to me that we're saying, we're gonna take hands off, but fund an effort and, and I just asked Representative Iler the question because it's been advertised to us that it would be used to create these jobs. But I think it exemplifies what the problem is. We're in effect just putting this money out there to be used by whoever the commerce secretary may be. Now, secretary Decker is great, fine person. And I have no doubt she would use her best efforts to do something she thought was the best interest of someone in North Carolina, whether it would be the project Representative Iler talked about, or some totally new project, some other project, maybe one I agreed with, maybe one I didn't agree with, but this does not seem to have the requisite vetting process to go with this amount of money for the sacrifice that would be made to guarantee the return on investment. I really reluctant to just put twenty million dollars in someone's pocket book or purse to walk around and look for someone to give it to. And so, although I'm really a supporter of economic development, I think it does have to go through the safeguards and the checks since it is the peoples' money, and we do need to have some vetting process to ensure it is spent in a manner that will give us the return on the investment that is discussed. Not something that can't be enforced, can't be identified, and therefore can't be measured. So right now I would have to vote against. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Speaker, members of the House. I'll speak briefly on this as if I assume you all have made up your mind on how you will vote whether for or against this amendment, but I think it's healthy for the body to make a few remarks about what we're doing here today. And I'll have to begin by saying that one of the most important powers that we have as legislators is the power to tax and the power to spend. It is a tremendous authority. And I also have to say that while I'm here, I'm most certainly trying to fight as hard as possible to create an environment where jobs can grow in the district I have the privilege to represent and all across the state. But there's a difference between creating an environment for jobs can grow within the role of government that we all have by way of our oath of office and directly creating jobs by taking taxpayer dollars by force and giving it out directly to a special interest. Let me say, I would be voting for this amendment if this amendment was talking about public infrastructure. Public monies for public infrastructure. But this amendment is not speaking about public infrastructure solely, but also by way of capital improvements and capital assets. I just want to make sure we have that understanding here. And also too, in regards to the shenanigans about appropriations and about spending and things of that nature, I want to bring your attention to the way that JDIG, JMAC and the ONE fund actually work, and this job catalyst program that we're actually adding to. While we may appropriate certain funds, we actually give the authorities of the Department of Commerce to go and enter into certain contracts and these contracts are actually signed not only by the director of commerce, but also by the attorney general. And as of November of last year, let me read to you, as a new member last year, our liability to the year of 2028 is eight hundred and forty million dollars. Now, for the other expansion that we have done, I'm not sure what that current number is. But just to let you understand is that this is not just thirty six million dollars here ad ten million dollars there, but again that these companies actually fulfill their obligation. The taxpayer's on the hook for at least 2028 to the tune of almost one billion dollars. Again, I would be supporting this amendment if this was solely for public infrastructure. Water, sewer, roadways, if the business goes belly up the taxpayers get the benefit of less congestion on the roadway. They get the benefit of the proper infrastructure so another business can come in. But for us to basically put the taxpayer on the hook and also leverage local governments to actually establish capital assets by way of shell buildings or by way of the actual equipment. If you read this provision or not but it also allows aspects of equipment purchases. So again, I find this very problematic and I would actually urge you to support, excuse me, I would urge you

to not support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wasn't going to speak on this one, but the debate became pretty interesting. One thing to note, I think Rep. Hall may have asked the question, or I thought he asked the question about where the money is coming from. The money for this actually has been appropriated, we just did that a couple hours ago. So the money is in the budget. I do think that the points that the points Rep. Millis have made, Rep. Stam have made, Rep. Catlin has made, which is probably one that pulls it with me as much as anything, are all very true. I suppose I'm going to vote for this amendment, even though I have some inclinations on both sides of it, if for no other reason than it gives this bill, which frankly everybody in here understands has become, what do you say, a Christmas tree? It's got a lot of pieces in it, so it will go over there with a piece that not only is of interest to Rep. Iler, and some others in the southeast, but is also of interest to the Senate, so maybe if the bill ever comes back, maybe it'll have a provision or two in there that is supported by a wide measure of individuals here in the House. So that's maybe just a practical thing, but the other piece of it is, is this debate over in the Senate, I imagine it's just gonna come back to us and back to us and back to us, and over the years, I don't know what the resolution is, I'm not sure what the right answer is, but we're certainly going to be back here many years to come trying to figure out what is that appropriate role, and as Rep. Millis said, what is the appropriate role for government in this area? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Rep. Dollar yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Dollar, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Dollar, I thought it was 20 million that was in the budget if 1224 passed. And is this 36 million? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's- I believe the amendment says 36, there's 20 in the budget, as far as where they would- those additional dollars would come from, I would leave that for the amendment sponsor to reconcile. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But as the budget senior chairman, where is the other 16 million being appropriated from? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well the bill... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Incidentally, staff is available to the members. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The funds would be sufficient, it's paid out over a period of time, and staff can explain the details of that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask amendment sponsor a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Iler, does the gentleman yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Iler, I understand this is your amendment, and we have 6 lights, and ?? discusses about 45 minutes, could you take the appropriate step please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not sure which appropriate step ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be what I believe in the 2015 rules will be the Floyd rule, and I believe that is calling the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I be recognized for a few words of debate before- [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman wasn't actually in line to be recognized, the gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, we've heard a couple of comments about 2 or 3, 1 and 2, I can tell you that within a few hundred feet, a few hundred yards of the site that is in this tier 3 county, only because those of us who live on the coastal part of that county are supposed to be filthy rich millionaires, it's a tier 3 county. You close highway 17, it's not a rich county. It's a poor county, needs the jobs, but within a few hundred feet is Columbus county, and not too far away is

I believe both of those are tier one counties. So our tier system has got some problematic areas where problematic seems to come up. There is some problematic things about it and every county is not uniform throughout. The other thing is this catalyst part was a closing fund for the secretary and the last two years we've lost a ?? project in that same area. We've lost a caterpillar project and we've find out that South Carolina who won those projects has a panel of about 13 of their cabinet officers who could make a decision and put money on the table today. A company doesn't want to hear we've got the votes for X, Y and Z like North Carolina is so well we've got the votes to do this, that and the other and then we go through the ?? wars all over again. They want to hear what's on the table today which gives a little bit of freedom to the secretary and the governor. I understand the ?? the way that works, that is paid somewhat down the road after they've proved they've qualified and have got the jobs in place. Qualified so that maybe a year or two down the road that's why the funding is sufficient. So that's two of the points I've heard. I've also heard something about winners and losers and I'm not trying to really be funny here but I guess it's going to sound that way but I'm just as happy to let Washington pick the losers and us pick the winners. But I guess it wasn't funny so Thank you. Point being board, ladies and gentleman that until other states get out of the rebate game or whatever you want to call it. When I was a Hardee's years ago we said how soon do we get rid of buy one get one free coupons and the answer always came back as soon as McDonald's and Burger King get rid of them buy one get one free coupons. So until the other states get out of this business doing business this way then we are going to be in that business or we are going to lose projects to South Carolina every year or to other states. I've got also a few concerns about the ?? industry that this may hurt them because we are giving a lot of money in one area and kind of being a little cheaper in other areas so I hope that doesn't play into anybody's thinking but again that's just some of the comments that have flown around and I want to answer a few of those. Recognized for a motion Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Move that we call the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has moved the previous question. As the sponsor of the amendment it is appropriate to do so. The question before the house is the motion for the previous question on the amendment. So many favoring adoption of the previous question will vote "aye" those opposed will vote "no." The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Seventy seven having voted in the affirmative and twenty eight in the negative. The motion for the previous question is adopted. Members this an amendment so there is not the three minute rebuttal time. Therefore the question before the House is the adoption of Amendment 4 set forth by Representative Iler to the House committee substitute for Senate bill 763 on it's third reading. Many favoring the adoption of the amendment will vote "aye" those opposed will vote "no." The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Thirty six having voted in the affirmative and sixty nine in the negative the amendment is not adopted. Representative Cleveland is recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland moves to amend the bill on page 19 lines 8 and 9 by adding the following between those lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Onslow, Representative Cleveland is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. As you all know in the budget we've changed the governments of the Roanoke Island commission and in doing so we neglected what we didn't neglect.

Just missed, uh, an item that had to be removed and this amendment removes the requirement for the Attorney General to provide counsel to the Roanoke Island Commission. I'd appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. Not the question before the House is the adoption of Amendment 5 set forth by Representative Cleveland to the bill. Submitting favoring adoption of the amendment will vote, "Aye," those opposed will vote, "No." The clerk will lock the machine to record the vote. 95 having voted in the affirmative and nine in the negative; the amendment is adopted. For what purpose doe the gentleman from Columbus, Representative Waddell, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, my finger slipped on that and I just want to be recorded, "Yes." [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted, "Aye." Is that what the gentleman asked for? The gentleman will be recorded as voting, "Aye." For what purpose does the gentleman from Pitt, Representative Brown, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the second time today, can I be recorded as voting, "Aye," please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman will be recorded as having voted, "Aye." [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send for an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman's recognized. Send forth his amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative T. Moore moves to amend the bill on Page 19, lines eight and nine by adding the following new section between the lines. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman's recognized to debate the bill amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, Members, this is the amendment I'm sending forth is language that was in the Technical Corrections Bill. I know of no controversy. This is the language to simple clarify that it is legal for you to go to the hardware store and get a copy made of a key. So, I would ask the body's support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a question for the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, is it now illegal to go to the hardware store and get a key? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's what I'm told, something that, uh, yeah. I guess it's illegal to take the tags off the mattress, but there you go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question of the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, how long has it been illegal to go to the hardware store to get a key made? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think about a year. There was some provision, Representative Lucas, that was in some obscure bill that has now been interpreted by the Locksmithing Board as to mean that if you were to go to like your Ace Hardware Store or go to Lowe's and get them to make a key for you that that is now somehow engaging in the profession of being a locksmith. So, we really need to fix this. Folks, I think Representative Moffitt was talking to me. It was in the Rag Reform Bill, it was in the Technical Corrections Bill that we passed. Um, you know, I know we can a lot of times argue about whether things are good or bad, but this one's gonna probably be pretty hard to argue with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if Representative Moore would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, would you say this is an example of these licensing boards that we keep creating running a muck? And now we're fixing it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, this is, uh, you know, that's a larger issue. I know you're throwing me a softball on that one, but this one's, this is, this one's definitely got the wow factor, right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Sir. I may be totally wrong on this, but, um, I'm offering clarification, I hope I'm not wrong. Somebody along the way somewhere told me that not all of it, but part of what this is about, you know, some of these modern cars have that key that you can't...

Have made because it's go this technical stuff in it that.. computer chip in the key or whatever, and that you've only been able to get that at like a dealer and this would allow like going to ?? hardware or something and you could get one made there. I don't know if that's so, but that's what i've been told and that it would be cheaper. If that's wrong, i'm sorry, but that's what i've been told. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker on the board [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Remember last year, I got up and I talked about.. I told everybody that I am a certified locksmith, and i thought to get something out of one of the bills that we had.. try to make it illegal to even possess locksmithing tools unless you are an actual practicing locksmith, and you all had mercy on me and you went ahead and took it out. Well this is something else that should have been taken out. What they were trying to do.. because I know which locksmith is pushing this bill. I know who sponsors on the other side, and the problem here is the particular locksmith and I understand his situation, but they were getting tired here. They were losing money for a lot of different reasons because a lot of the big box stores are making keys now, because cops are unlocking doors in the middle of the night when they are on their way to help somebody. They get a midnight call “i'm locked out my car,” by the time they get there, a police officer has come by, they stopped him and opened it, and now the car is gone. So they were trying to prohibit anybody that was not a locksmith from making keys, from having the equipment or anything else. I've got all the equipment, and I certainly didn't want it to be illegal. I went to school on it, I got trained on it, and I know how to use it. I bet this is just another part of that bill that should never have gotten past us, and it probably wouldn't have, but there didn't seem to be a whole lot of interest in fixing it, but I do appreciate you fixing the part is asked you to fix. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just briefly, it sounds like a lot of support for the amendment, but I did want to let folks know that it is more than theory, because a lot of.. what happened was after we finished last year, and as we were all moving on doing other things, at the beginning of this calendar year a lot of stores around the state got a letter.. cease and desist letters from this licensing board threatening prosecution for folks making keys, and I would venture to say if anyone here had the intention of that happening, please .. I don't think I can ask you to raise your hands because that violates the rules. But I will dare say very few would raise their hands to say yeah, that's what we wanted to have happen with that bill, and so this is an example of certainly rolling back some regulation, and something that we ought to do to pass, so I would ask the board to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaking on the amendment of the second term [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment of second term. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just in case it wasn't clear, i'm asking you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion for the debate. If not, the question before the house is the adoption of amendment six to the house committee substitute number two to senate bill 763. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No, the clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and five haven voted in the affirmative, and one in the negative, the amendment passes. Further discussion for the debate on the bill. If not, the question before the house is the adoption of the house committee substitute number two to senate bill 763 on its third reading. Those in favor will vote Aye, those opposed will vote No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Eighty-six haven voted in the affirmative, and twenty in the negative, the house committee substitute number two to senate bill 763 has passed its third reading, will be engrossed and sent to the senate

Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On amendment A5763, I’d like to be recorded as voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, can I be recognized for an announcement? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you,Mr. Speaker. Members, I'd like to invite you to a Rules Committee meeting tomorrow morning. Saturday morning at 8:30 AM. We’re going to take up at least two pieces of legislation. I don’t know of anything else now, but we’re going to deal with the President Pro Tempore Speaker’s appointment’s bill and the long awaited adjournment resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is at 8:30 AM. Representative Torbett will provide breakfast. 1228. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, tomorrow will be the closest thing to a purple suit day as we will probably see this year. Those of you who know Representative Womble know the reference. If you’ve got purple, put some on tomorrow. Representative Wray, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, one of my good friends is departing us. He didn’t run this last time. He’s a true gentleman. He didn’t want to get up, he wanted to ease out, but my friend Joe Tolson, I met Joe about 16 years ago, maybe 17 years ago on a state Economic Development Board. I tell you, you couldn’t ask for a finer gentleman that took me under his wing, he’s been nothing but a friend. He’s been a seatmate at one time. Used to buy candy and he used to get on me because he said you’re putting weight on, man, and I got sugar and I don’t need all that. I just want you to know, a lot of people have come by this desk and Joe has passed this on to me, and this is a peanut container. Joe, you are truly a gentleman, you have truly been a good legislator. You’ve been here nine terms. We’ve been through a lot. We talked a lot about our families. I tell you one good thing about it. He truly loves his family, but he’s been a good legislator. We were working on the budget one year, I tell you, if you don’t have the good Lord, you don’t have your family, you don’t have anything. I watched Joe Tolson sit here one day and he was torn a little bit, but I think his grandson was graduating from High School, was that right Joe? Junior High, which was really important to him and a time that he really wanted to go, but Joe stayed here to vote because he was here to represent the people of North Carolina, people of his district. Joe, from me to you and from the colleagues, I know you didn’t want to get up and say nothing, but from the bottom of my heart, you’ve been a friend to me, you’ve been a good seatmate, and you have been a good legislator. I wish you many, many more years with your family and I’m going to miss you, buddy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Notices and announcements. Seeing none, Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that subject to the ratification of bills, receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of conference reports, receipt of committee reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, introductions of bills and resolutions and modifications of the calendar, that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on Saturday, August 2, 2014 at 9 AM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Brandon that the House do now adjourn subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of 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 Saturday, August 2nd at 9 AM. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed say no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.

??