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 15, 2014 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members, the House is gonna go into recess until 10:45. Members the House is in recess until 11:15. The House will come to order. Members will take their seats. Visitors will retire from the chamber. The sergeant in arms will close the doors. Members and visitors are asked to please silence all telephones and electronic devices. Today's prayer will be offered by Representative Ted Davis. Members. Strike. Today's prayers will be offered by Anne Murphy. Thank you. Visitors in the gallery will please stand and remain standing for the pledge of allegiance. Ms. Murphy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Peace be with you. Psalm 37:5, commit your way to the Lord. Trust in him, and he shall bring it to pass. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 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] Representative Burr is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chairman, the journal for August the fourteenth has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr moves that the journal for August fourteenth be approved as written. All in favor please say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it, and the journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials, or papers addressed to the general assembly of the House? Messages from the Senate, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Special message from the Senate: Speaker ordered that the message be sent to the House of Representatives with information the Senate adopts the report of conferees for Senate bill 734, a bill to be entitled to be an act to provide further regulatory relief to the citizens of North Carolina by providing various administrative reforms by eliminating certain unnecessary, outdated statutes and regulations and modernize, simplify cumbersome or outdated regulations by making various other statutory changes. With appropriate action being taken by both chambers, the bill will be ordered in row. Respectfully, Sarah Lane, principle clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. For what purpose does the Representative from Brunswick, Representative Iler rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker, I move that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That, excuse. May I ask the House to please come to order. The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker, I move that House bill 1086, North Carolina and South Carolina Rail Compact be removed from the committee on rules and added to today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection. Motion having been objected to, the question before the House, strike that. The gentleman from Brunswick, Representative Iler is recognized to debate his motion to remove the bill from the committee on rules to add to today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker, this bill came over from the Senate and passed, almost unanimously I believe. I don't have the vote count in front of me. But this bill is a simple enabling bill to allow us to talk to South Carolina about a small rail line between Columbus and Horry counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, the chair will inform the body that it is the intention of the chair not to take the bill up this morning. The bill will be taken up later this afternoon after some committee meetings that will be occurring. Further discussion, further debate on the gentleman's motion to add the bill to the calendar? If not, the question before the House is the motion to add the Senate committee substitute to 1086 to today's calendar. All in favor will vote aye. All opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Representative Riddell, does the gentleman wish to be recorded on this motion? Representative Bumgardner, does the gentleman wish to be recorded on this motion? Representative Cunningham, does the lady wish to be recorded on this motion? Representative Reives, Representative Meyer, do these members wish to be recorded on this motion? If not, the chair is about to lock the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Eighty three having voted in the positive and six in the negative, the motion is adopted. The bill will be added to today's calendar.

Mr. Speaker CHANGE SPEAKER Member of the Chair would like to recognize an honorary page today, Alex Tine who is the son of Representative Paul Tine is our sole honorary page today, Alex we’re glad to have you here, if you all would join me in welcoming him. {Applause} For what purpose does the Gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam, rise? CHANGE SPEAKER For a motion. CHANGE SPEAKER The Gentleman is recognized for his motion. CHANGE SPEAKER Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules to the end that having voted on the prevailing side that I could move to reconsider the vote by which HOUSE BILL 369 failed to we failed to concur in that, and I’d like to explain the motion. CHANGE SPEAKER The Gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. CHANGE SPEAKER Mr. Speaker, members of the House. This is criminal law changes and most of the bill is what the House passed overwhelmingly in 594 The Omnibus Criminal Law Bill a couple of months ago. The Senate sent it back most of it in 369 and we did not concur in it because it left out some things. For example a fix to the death penalty mental retardation language that Representative Glacier and I, and Ted Davis, Representative Davis worked on. It left out a couple of Representative Davis, I think maybe Representative Howard’s idea or Cherie Berry’s idea, Representative Speciale’s provision on expungetion. So that’s why we failed to concur an appoint a comp. freeze but the Senate never appointed comp. freeze, but there’s nothing really wrong with the bill itself and the D.A.’s, you probably have gotten their letter, have urgently requested that we pass this bill, it deals for example with cell phones in prison. And I have shared it with the Minority leader, shared it with our caucus, asked staff last night to send to your email both the bill and the committee summary so you have some knowledge of it before you showed up here today. So my motion right now is to suspend the rules, the reason we have to suspend the rules is because you have to make a motion to reconsider the next day and this is a couple, three or four weeks later. That’s my motion Mr. Speaker. CHANGE SPEAKER For what purpose does the Gentleman from Wake Representative Jackson rise? CHANGE SPEAKER To speak to the motion. CHANGE SPEAKER The Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. CHANGE SPEAKER Thank you Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the members and my caucuses this is what we talked about this morning, this bill is really important to some people here in the Chamber today, and so I’d ask you to support this motion. CHANGE SPEAKER Further discussion, further debate? CHANGE SPEAKER For what purpose does the Gentleman from Craven Representative Speciale rise? CHANGE SPEAKER To speak on the, to ask a question of the sponsor. CHANGE SPEAKER If the Gentleman would please state his purpose again. CHANGE SPEAKER To see if the sponsor will take a question. CHANGE SPEAKER Does the Gentleman from Wake yield to the Gentleman from Craven? CHANGE SPEAKER I yield. CHANGE SPEAKER He yields. CHANGE SPEAKER Section 13 talks about getting the local governments and e-verify which contracts e-verify applies to. Which contracts would it not apply to? CHANGE SPEAKER When we get to the Bill itself we will discuss that in greater detail, but the committee summary says that this requires, this makes these statutes consistent, that with similar statutes for other governmental entities apparently there’s a distinction between city and counties and other governmental entities and Representative Burr is researching that particular one for your more detail question, when we get to the bill. CHANGE SPEAKER And is Susan Fitts here? CHANGE SPEAKER And staff will be here before we get to the merits of the bill. CHANGE SPEAKER For what purpose does the Gentleman from Durham Representative Luebke rise? CHANGE SPEAKER To see if Representative Stam would yield for a question. CHANGE SPEAKER Does the Gentleman from Wake yield to the Gentleman from Durham? CHANGE SPEAKER I do. CHANGE SPEAKER He yields. CHANGE SPEAKER Representative Stam this is a nice complicated set of maneuvers or maneuvers perhaps is the wrong word, of actions, that you are talking and I wonder that if I can ask you this. You are first of all asking for a suspension of the rules because it more than one day to reconsider. Is that correct? CHANGE SPEAKER Right. Right. CHANGE SPEAKER And if we reconsider you are going to move that we do concur in this.

In the Senate changes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. The Senate refused to appoint conferees. The very important provisions were in the bill we passed. They’re in this bill, and law enforcement really wants it and needs it. And I [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentlemen from Wake yield to the gentleman from Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, I appreciate that you sent the bill out last night, and I did read it. And would just ask you that you would give the body three or four points about why we should concur after we, well actually now so we would know whether to vote to reconsider. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. And also, several days also sent it to the leadership of your caucus as well. Not just last night. The provisions that are of urgent need are 5, 6 and 8. 5 and 6 deals with penalties for giving inmates cell phones in prison. That’s for section 5. Section 6 deals with people who assault person in retaliation because of their exercise of legislative duties. I think in the gallery is Miss Jansen, the daughter of the person who was held hostage in another state because of his daughter’s service here as a district attorney. Then section 8 is very important to the state crime lab. And this is the one I believe we passed twice from this body, dealing with allowing remote testimony by video of forensic and chemical analysis. The reason for this is because it’s an exaggeration but let’s say our forensic scientists were spending half their time travelling and sitting in court to give in-person testimony, when they could do it by video. But there’s plenty of protection for defendants because they can object, and get the actual testimony. And I would refer you to Representative Jackson, who probably does more criminal defense than I. And this came up several days ago. Why has it, the House bill passed, why hasn’t the Senate bill passed? What can you do about it? We can’t do a thing about the Senate, but by passing three motions, we can go ahead and pass the parts of the bill that need to pass. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just, and since [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will mention too, [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to continue responding to the gentleman’s question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Since you do have a member who teaches criminal law in law school, he in writing approved it and said good, please get it done. Representative Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield for an additional question from the gentleman from Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually just to, well, okay I’ll put it as a question. Will you accept my thanks for explaining this to the members of the House? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m glad you asked these questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We vote to suspend the rules to put this matter on, and just now pass this, does it now have to go back to the Senate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that a question to me? The answer is no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I was going to answer. No, the answer is if the bill to reconsider comes on, the bill is before us as the Senate sent it to it, and we can simply adopt it, in which case it goes to the Governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But if we don’t adopt it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we don’t adopt it, then it fails. It goes no where. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m trying [SPEAKER CHANGES] In this case, the procedural question is to suspend the rules to reconsider. If this prevails by the votes of two thirds, we would come back and vote on the ?? bill thereafter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There seems to be a question as to actually what was put in that bill. We sent it over there, they put something in it and sent it back here, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may wish to direct that question as to the substance of the bill to the maker of the motion. Does the gentleman of Wake yield to the gentleman from Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, not exactly. We sent our Omnibus crime bill in a different bill, 594. Why they didn’t take that up, I have no idea. They took an unrelated bill and put 369, what you have before you. But it has many, if not most of the provisions that we have passed

594 pages left out some that we thought were important where I was gemological and an additional question JoJo White legitimately heal it feels a little recommend if if in fact we know reconsider everything else will be able to suggest a revocable basically dead in it that we voted on and passed taken out resolution all know that we concur in The Citadel this before you it's not perfected that had everything want with the things that are in are things I believe members of the South one to become wall this week is just pointless Apple will will repair severely negative things that we wanted in it not addicted in about a it doesn't seem have the things we wanted it further discussion for this question for the house is the motion of represented stand to suspend the rules and to reconsider the vote the last the past two Senate committees of the for house bill 369 many favoring emotional vetted those opposing right now the corporate about the corporate machine required about 70 to having voted in the affirmative and 19 in the negative emotions adopted the Senate committee substitute for house bill 369 is now before the body the gentleman from like… Damn is recognized to make a motion Mr. Speaker on we anybody the prevailing side the we moved to reconsider the vote by which the house bill: house bill 369 only make the argument about it probably did further discussion for the purpose of the gentleman from Onslow representative Cleveland rise McConville the gentleman has for regulation to ask the sponsors of the gentleman from Wakefield so question from the gentleman from Onslow I did yields ironist in section 13 of this refers to E-Verify has nothing to do with the person you are talking about and I thoroughly agree with the changes your make in the code however in section 13 were basically telling small governmental you and entities and municipalities that I don't have to conduct E-Verify is your anyway that that portion can be removed from this mellitus type automatically will that was one of the reasons we failed to coalesce medically conferees was the think things like that at the things we wanted to take the things out generally according to the staff memo on this makes our cities and counties know are similar to other governmental unity entities why the Senate decided to do that I don't know what it's a compared to the magnitude of the rest of the bill itself small market standard is demolitions (another questions about the gentleman legitimate promotion I I can understand your magnitude bill and unfortunately that happens frequently around here but in reality from I can ascertain is that we passed a law that said municipalities and governmental amenities would have to use E-Verify and now we're changing that so that municipalities and other governmental unit humidities don't have to use E-Verify if the contract is not half $1 million are larger so in entities the right to contract for less than half $1 million doesn't use E-Verify I know that many guide me folks you don't like the concept of E-Verify that E-Verify make sure that when government contracts Glockner any business is doing business that are hiring citizens of the state providing work for people who are legally here and doing what they should be doing without this protection registering nothing more than encouraging and entities

To hire whoever they want at the cheapest labor price they can hire and continue doing business as they have in the past. We have citizens looking for jobs, and we have citizens that need jobs, and we as a body should be doing what we can to help them. When we pass laws such as this, they [vizierate] a system that is used to make sure citizens are the ones being employed., we are not helping our constituents. I’m going to have to vote no on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I’m confused, I thought the vote we just took was to suspend the rules to reconsider our non-concurrence vote earlier. Could I ask you what we’re current voting on? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. The first motion, the motion to reconsider was not on the legislative, they required a suspension of the rules to do it on a different day, that motion was adopted. The motion before the [??] now; is the motion to reconsider the vote not to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I ask you one more question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that mean we’re still not voting whether we like this Bill or not? I’m going to read this thing and vote on it regardless of the outcome of this vote. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Roan, Representative Warren rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’d like to ask the Representative from Wake a question. Also, to make a comment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from Roan? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative [Steele] we failed to concur, or agreed not to concur on this, on a vote of 112 to 0. So, my question would be. What was so [egregious] in it in your opinion? That we voted unanimously not to concur, that we should overlook now, to vote to concur. The second thing, would you mind if I elaborate a little bit on the verify question that Representative Cleveland had? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I won’t mind at all. Let me tell you what I know was missing from it. First of all, the U.S. Supreme Court in Hall vs. Florida said we had to in all death penalty cases handle retarded citizens differently. The House Bill had that language, the Senate left it out, not it’s the law anyway, but we wanted it in there. Second, there were a couple of provisions that think came from the Commissioner of Labor concerning the vices at the State Fair and the penalties for having unsafe equipment at the State Fair. Third, Representative Speciale had a provision concerning expunctions that they left out. Now, this one on E-verify, if we don’t change this, what it literally means is, if a city worker goes to Kinko’s and gets some copies they’ve got to get E-verification from the person selling them copies. This just clarifies that it’s the same for all governmental entities whether it’s like an actual contract. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand that, my second question was, “would you mind if I explained to Representative Clevelan,” this has nothing to do with hiring new employees. It simply clarifies the E-verify portion that we passed last year, so that, as Representative Stam says, if you work for a company, or you work for the city, or you work for one the universities and you were to go to Staples to pick [reams] of paper or whatever, every time you go into the store, by technical interpretation of what we passed, you would have to get confirmation or affidavit from the store that all their sub-contractors use E-verify. This correction actually references an existing statue which sets the limitations or the guidelines on contract amounts that that part of E-verify would be applicable to. It a clean verification, its a technical clarification and it doesn’t change the responsibility of any company being required to comply with E-verify laws. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m very much confused, pardon my adult mind in this. When did we vote not to concur on House Bill 369? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a moment. We voted on that July, 31st. So, that’s why the initial vote was to suspend the rules to allow reconsideration on a different legislative. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was on . . .

The reason. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman have additional inquiry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. My problem is, I thought we passed Representative Stam's bill by 112 to something, was that what it was? And that that was the bill that was sent to the Senate and that the Senate took that bill and put it into House bill 369, and sent it back over here. Or, and hadn't come back. I'm confused, a little bit confused about that. Please help me clear my mind. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The, the chair is gonna let, this, Representative Stam's bill, the chair's gonna let Representative Stam explain the history of his bill and, if the gentleman is so. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. It's not actually my bill. Sourced out of the Judiciary C committee was House committee substitute for 594 which was a omnibus criminal law bill. It passed here with many if not most of these provisions by a large vote. I don't remember exactly. That was 594. The Senate never took that up. Instead, they took an unrelated bill, 369, put what you see before you in it, and sent it over here for concurrence. We did not concur because of the four things missing from it, but they never appointed conferees. But the underlying bill has things that are very important and I would ask you to pass this motion and the next motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To, to ask somebody a question again. If, and I suspect Representative Stam, if we pass 560 whatever it was, and sent it to them, and then they put that bill on the side and took another one of our bills and put 560 something into that bill, is that the bill that's just coming back to us? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They took, Representative Michaux, they took the contents of 594 and took most of the contents of 594 and put it in 369, but not all of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And then when they put those contents into 369, was it sent back over here? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They did send it over here, yes. The July 31st or about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And what did we vote on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman wish to propound a third question, then does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Wake yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And that was, that was the vote we voted to concur on 369 instead of the other bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We voted not to concur in consultation with many members of the minority who wanted to get some of these other provisions in it. And I agreed with them, and Representative Davis who was handling a lot of that matters agreed with that, so that's what we did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his inquiry to the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we sent a bill over there, 560 whatever it was, 594. They took provisions of 594 and put it into 369, sent that back over here, that should not have been, in my book, a motion to not concur. It should have been a motion to pass that particular bill and send it back them for concurrence. That's. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It, it would. The chair would point out that anytime a, a House bill is returned from the Senate and the other chamber makes changes to that bill, the question before the House is whether to concur or not concur because it was originally a House bill. So the motion to concur or not concur was properly before the body on July 31st as well as the motion today to reconsider said motion. Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to reconsider the vote whereby the bill was not concurred with the Senate committee substitute for House bill 369. So many favoring the motion 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 three having voted in the affirmative and eighteen in the negative, the motion is adopted. Senate bill, the Senate committee substitute for House bill 369 is now back before the body. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion.

And in a request the gentleman is recognized for motion motion is to think for request is evocative snaffle your with me although I don't intend to debate it less money has established permitted on before they had gentleman from wake news that the house bill concur with the Senate committee substitute the house bill 369 further discussion further debate if not question for the house is the motion to concur to the Senate committee substitute for house bill 369 submitted driving adoption of the version were about as opposed will write no more than about corpulent machine records about 77 having voted in the affirmative and 14 in the negative emotions because adopted the companies are dismissed and the bill was ordered enrolled and sent to the government also be just a moment action furniture like to extend a couple of courtesy's legality on motion of the gentleman from the initial Alameda County representatives regale and while it shares happy to extend the courtesy's legality to read and Jennifer Caldwell and their families loudly status of the we could welcome and on motion of the gentleman from Craven representatives Vaishali chairs happy to extend the courtesy's legality in his granddaughter Nagin special like many of you stand let us welcome you all to ratification of bills and resolutions… Represented in the absence second stage and him back about person. My recommendation is procurement and speak about represented genitals and possibilities is no members on 369 that will be censored out of a special message may have changed by the body of the scheduled this point we are going to have a rules committee meeting at 1 PM to take up a bill we about to go into recess and will come back at 139 is that they let Democrats plan on having a caucus also so this time the child and make the announcement the rules committee will meet at 1 PM this afternoon and Arnold committee room 28 notices announcements will percent of the gentleman from Northampton there's an array rise what announcement Jim has announced house Democrats who read immediately after recently going recess and are regarding room evolution the long bike is lady fermentable represented Samuelson rise of lady has reported out I meaning start will come back to is the Rosetta Stone is on the floor house committee call original stars recognized unannounced the Republican caucus immediately upon recess in room 1228 members one modification to the announcement about the rules committee the Republicans are caucusing in their 70 and that is the tentative plan is to be there at 1 PM however if we have changed it will be someone from the start and on staff there with assigned to the revenue Reaganism it is my engine that had that meeting somewhere in this building and not in the elevator this with point have been 1224 further notices and announcements not

The gentleman from Stanly Representative Burr is recognized for a motion to recess the House until 1:30. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair just a motion to recess at this time until 1:30 pm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the gentleman's motion would be that we recess subject to the receipt of messages from the Senate Committee reports, conference reports, re-referrals bills of resolution, appointment of conferees, introductions of bills of resolutions and modifications of the calendar. Is that the gentleman's motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair accepts that motion. Members have heard the motion all in favor to reconvene at 1:30. All in favor please say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The House stands in recess subject to those conditions til 1:30. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come back to order. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Floyd rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker during the recess I have a conversation with Representative Lucas. He indicated that he will allow me to have a extra few dollars for this afternoon so I needed to confront him whether or not I needed to borrow that money from him. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You might want to, you might want, you might want to go ahead and get it upfront in cash. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members we're about to go into recess until 3 pm. I believe the conferred with both the minority leader, the minority rep and the majority leader and I believe both caucuses are gonna be announcing caucuses. Members the purpose in this is to try to work out the logistics of a couple of bills to hopefully get out of here, but we need to allow time for the caucuses to do their work. Notices and announcements. For what purpose does the gentleman from North Hampton Representative Ray rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House of Democrats for caucus immediately when recess is announced or done and in our regular meeting room. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Caldwell Representative Starnes rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Republicans will caucus immediately upon recess in 1228. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland Representative Lucas rise? Is this to respond to the other gentleman from Cumberland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually Mr. Speaker it's a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Cumberland has the floor to speak a few minutes for point of personal privilege. The Chair would ask the House to please come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. When we first arrived here back in May 12th I had a little wager, seat mate wager with my seat mate. The wager pertained to personal circumstances and invitations. Well I felt confident that I would win this wager. The jest of the wager was that the we wouldn't be around for my birthday. He said well if we're not around for your birthday we certainly won't be around for my birthday. I said well perhaps we're both are safe then, it's gonna be a wash. Well I've lost the wager. My seat mate will turn 39 next week. So let's, join me in wishing my seat mate Leonard Bell a happy birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements. If not, the House is gonna stand in recess until 3 pm subject to the ratification of bills and resolutions, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referrals of those resolutions, appointment of conferees, introductions of bills and resolutions and modifications to the calendar. And we will reconvene at 3 pm. We are now in recess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. Ratification of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In ?? ratify ?? the Governor House Bill 369. Now it could make changes to various criminal laws and clarify sewage local government contracts verify ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chapter bills will be noted. City Bill 734 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the ?? Speaker of the House of Representatives conferee to solve the differences between Senate of the House of Representative on Senate Bill 734. A bill ?? further regulatory release to the citizens of North Carolina. The conferee recompense Senate of the House Representatives ?? report conferees for the Senate, Senator Wade Chair, Senator Apodaca and

Brown. Conferees to the House of Representatives: Representative Tim Moore, chair, Representative Stam, Tillis, and Tine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam, is recognized for a motion pertaining to the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker, I move that we adopt the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Wondering how many members are still coming in before we get started on the debate. Members of the House, if you look at this bill carefully, it is not regulatory reform. It is regulatory repeal. In this bill are multiple places where our environment is hurt by the contents of this bill. Just one, for example, in the bill, is that the state of North Carolina, this general assembly, may not put through, may not pass an environmental regulation that is stronger than the federal regulations. Why, members, would we want to handcuff ourselves? What if the coal ash regulation is weak from our, by our standards? What this 734 does is says we may not pass tougher coal ash regulations because the feds have done one thing. We have shackled ourselves, handcuffed ourselves, with this part of the bill. And the rest of the bill is full of features like that. You read it carefully, and you can see how much the bill damages the environment. And I urge you to vote against the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman from Caldwell, Representative Starnes rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, and I apologize for my voice, I have, recovering from a cold, but there are a lot of good things in this bill but sometimes, you'll find one piece that you just feel like you just can't overlook. And I would be remiss if I didn't call your attention to the provisions dealing with alcohol on our community college campuses. I understand and I know that there is a growing industry in this state dealing with allowing the brewing of malt beverages. There are a lot of micro-breweries that are springing up all across the state, and they have a desire to be able to teach people this. But this goes far and beyond what we ever envisioned. And these provisions never went through the ABC committee. They were never considered on the floor of this House. We never had an opportunity to pass judgment on this provision. So yes, they're gonna be able to teach brewing at certain community colleges, but it also allows them not only to retail their malt beverages, but they can wholesale it. Here goes the three tiered ABC system that we've had established in this state for decades beginning to crumble. We've had other brewers in this state who have begged us to be able to come out from under the limits on their brewing so that they can be immune or exempt from the three tiered system and we've said no to the private retailers, or to the private brewers, but we're telling the community colleges, yes you are exempt. The Umstead act when it was first passed through this general assembly many, many years ago said that the state of North Carolina will not be in business in direct competition with private retailers. Well, there's another exemption here for our community colleges to be exempt from the Umstead act. It's not the first time, but it's a continued erosion of the Umstead act which is a bad idea. But the community colleges are teaching people to be in the brewing business, but then it gives them the authority to sell their product at below costs, which no other brewer is gonna be able to do. You, you can't, no brewery can afford to sell their

00:00 cost or blue cost and yet we're gonna do that here at these community colleges underage drinking is a serious problem in this state and I know we like to pretend like it's not a problem but if you've read the news and observer this week you just read on how the tragic accident where a teenager was killed because he was served alcohol at a wedding party by adults underage drinking is a serious problem in this state and we're putting the sale of alcoholic beverages on the community colleges where the majority of the people that are at these colleges are not even old enough to purchase this product and yet we were told earlier today where they had the [??] culture classes they allowed the underage students to even sample the products as long as they promise to spit it out the same thing we'll be doing with the breweries and now we laugh at that but that's how far we have gone in twisting these rules and these regulations folks this is not good for the state of North Carolina Jim Gardner who's the chairman of the ABC commission was in my office earlier this year on several occasions begging for money to start an underage drinking [??] in this state and we did not fund it we did not grant him any of the provisions that he asked for so that he could start an underage drinking program in this state we're burying our heads in the sand if we don't believe that this is a problem and yet we are the guilty of putting this alcohol right here on the campus in front of these students the other provision in this allows them to sell their self made beer at special events on the campus so whether I don't know what the special event is it's limited to November I think it's twelve a year I don't know if that would [??] a ball game a contest a sporting event or what the special event would constitute but folks this is a bad provision I know that there are a lot of good things in this bill but we can do better for the people of North Carolina when the republicans were elected to this state the majority in this state this is not what we promised the people that we would do we can do better as a republican majority this is not good for the state of North Carolina and on that provision alone we are to vote no on this bill. for what purpose does the gentleman from actually the chair will the gentleman from Wake I believe was gonna explain this bill here and kind of got caught off guard the gentleman from Wake representative Stam is recognized to debate the conference report. thank you Mr chair and may I have assistance of staff on the floor. yeah the chair has previously granted permission for staff for the balance of the day. there're about 58 provisions and I'm certainly not gonna go over 58 but I think the debate from representative Luebke and representative Starnes illustrates some of the problems for example the what we call the Hardison of amendment that representative Luebke is complaining about that's [??] the wall we passed that a couple of years ago what this bill does is say that if a state agency adopts uses one of the exceptions to the Hardison amendment that'll automatically come to the general assembly in the next session as if ten letters of objection had been filed with regard to the provision that representative Starnes mentioned and I sympathize with him but we're already doing this at community college for of [??] culture and I think representative Stevens can speak to that because it's [??] community college and I understand that just recently the president of the community college system Scott Rolce has assured us that they are not gonna be branding brands to start selling but overall I'd just like to speak overall about the bill most of the environmental provisions representative Samuelson is prepared to discuss representative Millis is prepared to discuss many of those environmental provisions but overall this bill and along with the other regulatory form from a couple of years ago I think that's more for the economy than maybe even tax reform certainly more than [??] with that kind of thing because this overall not every provision sets people free to do business in a business like way while protecting the environments so I encourage to vote for it I encourage you to ask. 05:00

Questions. Most of the provisions, I think there are 20 provisions in here that passed the House but not the Senate. I think there are like 8 provisions that passed the Senate but not the House, and then there are how many does that leave? 20 or 30 provisions that have passed the House and the Senate. So we’ve seen most of this previously, on this floor, and passed it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenberg, Representative Samuelson, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As Representative Stam said, there are close to 60 provisions in here. Only 11 of them have not come through this body before. So I’m just going to go over very quickly those 11, because the rest of them I’ve either already gone over with you or someone else has already gone over with you. The first one is number 7 and I may need some help with this one because this is not as much my expertise. Representative of small business entities and administrative appeals. This is basically saying if you are a small business owner, you can represent yourself in court on these types of appeals. And to my understanding while the Bar Association doesn’t love it, they don’t object to it. The next one would be on page number 16, which is Permit Choice. This is a measure that the Senate had passed and then sent over to us. It basically says if you are seeking a permit on a local level and you’ve already submitted your permit request and then that local government changes the rules that impact your particular request for a permit, this gives you a choice to decide whether you want the rules as they were when you filed your permit, or whether you’re okay with the rules by the time they go ahead and rule on your permit. So it gives you a choice and recognizes that you filed it under one set of rules and you should be able to operate under those. They did change it from the way they originally had it and took out zoning cases because they recognized that zoning cases can cover a bigger area and shouldn’t be caught up in this. Number 10 you’ve heard a little bit already, is the Community College Brewing waiver. I will say that I’ve heard and look in your emails and see if you get an email on this, that there had been conversations with some of the opponents to this, with the Community College people on an agreement that this is not going to be used to have Community Colleges create their own brewing label. And that they’re going to continue to talk together to figure out and get a better comfort level and I believe right now that their objection has been removed. Next one is number 18, the Good Samaritan Law. We did something with this, I think it was a year ago, so that medical personnel wouldn’t get caught up in liability issues. This just clarifies that as long as they’re doing it voluntarily, without expectation of compensation, they’re covered under the Good Samaritan law. Let’s see. Number 23. This one’s going to be controversial to some people, Contested Cases for CAMA Permits. This is only on the Coastal Area Management Plans. And the idea is here that if you are for instance the developer and you requested a permit. And that permit, the ruling on the permit comes out, and a third party does not like that ruling. The way the law is now, that third party wants to object. They’re not the people being impacted by the permit directly, as in the people who are doing the work or the people who are having the work done. That is a third party objects to it, then unless a judge rules with that third party and puts a stay in place, the project can continue. And some other coastal people may want to comment on this. It only applies in the coastal areas. Number 24 is Open Burning. This is one that we had passed through here that allowed for open burning of yard debris under certain circumstances. There was a provision that we did not add, that the Senate had wanted. And that provision had to do with if you own a fireplace, and you want to burn in your fireplace right now, local governments may or may not make rules about that. Well apparently, and I believe it was in San Francisco, they made a rule that you had to get an air quality permit if you wanted to burn in your fireplace. So what the Senate added that was different than our other one was the clarification that local government cannot say you can’t burn certain things in your fireplace because of air quality issues. You don’t have to get an air quality permit to use your fireplace. Staff says I got that one right. Number 25, Coastal Stormwater Grandfathering. As you know, over the last few years when the economy kind of tanked, there were a number of local governments who extended permits to certain permit holders. Then in the meantime, certain rules would change so that some of the buffer requirements, some of the storm water requirements would change.

They grandfathered the properties that were immediately covered by that buffer area or ruling, but if you are the developer you might have owned a contiguous piece of property that was part of your whole project and it was not grandfathered. So what this does is grandfather the contiguous properties. One of the concerns that I had and some others was that eventually, just like all of us are eventually related, all of your properties could eventually be contiguous because you’d grandfather and grandfather and grandfather. So we got it clarified that they can only grandfather that one contiguous property. They can’t expand it out to all of their properties. So that’s what that one’s on. Alright, then go all the way to 57,the Hartester amendments. As Representative Stam mentioned this is already law. All they have done is clarify that during the rules review process that we put into place in ’74 last year, that during the rules review process if one of those . . . there are three categories . . . when the agencies are reviewing their rules there are three categories that determine what their next step is in the process. And one of those categories was only in effect if they got ten letters of objection. And when it got ten letters of objection it had to go through the whole process and eventually it comes back here. So what this says is that if one of those rules would have been caught by the Hartester amendment that we've already passed, then it’s going to be viewed as having gotten ten letters of objection and it’ll have to go through the whole process. The net effect of this is that there will be more of those rules that will have to go through that full process and more of them will be coming back to you in future legislations. But in terms of the impact of the Hartester amendment it’s the same as what it was before. Number 58 is really a technical correction . . . forestry fees correction. This has something to do with the budget and it was strictly a technical correction that needed to be changed. Number 59,recourse when agency fails to act, some courts have ruled that if we put in place a requirement for an agency, but we don’t put a penalty on that requirement, then we didn’t really expect them to fulfill it because we didn’t put a penalty. Kind of like if your parent says,“John, you don’t run out the front door,” but Johnny runs out the front door and nothing happens, well then did you really want Johnny not to run out the front door. So what this says is that we do expect agencies . . . it just says shall. . . we do expect agencies to do what we said they were supposed to do even if we didn’t put in a penalty for not doing it. And I think that’s the last of the ones that are new. And like I said of the almost 60 provisions in here, only these eleven have not already been through this house and already passed. So it’s not all new stuff. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES: For what purpose does the gentleman from Person, Representative Wilkins, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask if Representative Stam would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from Person? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative Stam. It’s my understanding and belief that certain portions of Senate Bill 38 are now part of this omnibus . . . omnibus, correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, that is correct. And the Carl Lake IBT transfer provision is section . . . it’s in here if you’ll just give me one second. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker he’s way ahead of me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to propound an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He’s propounding an answer to the anticipated question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. So the gentleman has yielded. Please continue on gentleman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s Section 37 which is on page 31 and hopefully will make everyone in Person County happy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman have a third question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do and will preface it just a moment. Actually- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to an addition question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually Representative Stam this has great impact on Granville, Vance and Franklin. But this as you best know, this Section 37 provision would have the sought after IBT effect for that Carl Lake water system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is my understanding. And I have a summary here, which. . . if you would like the one paragraph summary I’ll give it to you: As a petition for certificate to withdraw or transfer water stored in any multipurpose reservoir - that’d be Carl Lake – by the Corp of Engineers and partially located in a state adjacent to North Carolina – I guess that’s Virginia – provided the Corp of Engineers approve the withdrawal or transfer on or before July 1

2014, for those that are to be considered and a determination made according to the procedures. There have been anecdotal evidence from northern counties from the Lake Gaston region, which would be those ones you mentioned, that they could lose potential economic development projects currently be considered without this expedited timeline. So I think this is just what you, just what the doctor ordered, for you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Would the gentleman yield for a further question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to an additional question from the gentleman from ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, as you have gone through this, knowing some provisions that were once part of SB38, have you seen any mention of declassification of any waters of the Den River? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. That was in an original Senate Bill that came over, and that has been deleted. It had to do with Caswell County and Person, and that is not in this Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Stam and Mr. Speaker, may I speak briefly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Person has the floor to debate the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes presented a good point to you about omnibus bills. They’ve always got some stuff you love and some stuff you hate. The thing I hated is now out of this bill, and the thing I love is in it. And I’ll be supporting it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowayan, Representative Ford, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I like every bit of this bill but I’m voting no. Usually when I like 95% of a bill I say okay. I’m voting no because of 17. These community colleges and the breweries. I can’t deal with this. I can’t handle that. At RCCC, we have early college, 15 year olds going into the RCCC. So we’re going to drop off the kids at the brewery today? Now I understand some community colleges are already doing this. But this is absolutely ridiculous and I agree with Representative Starnes. This, we’ve got to stop this and stop this now. I don’t understand it at all. I cannot support it and I will not support this bill because of this one provision. We just can’t do it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Surrey, Representative Stevens, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I did not intend to speak but I wanted to speak I guess directly to Representative Ford. Surrey Community College has a horticulture center. They’re teaching people to grow vineyards, they’re teaching people to make wine, they’re teaching them to market. And if you ever though that alcohol needs to be tightly controlled, you should see how they do it on this campus. It’s not going to be an issue of any of these kids being able to get any alcohol without showing some kind of ID. It’s one of the more protected ways of distributing that alcohol. Second thing is, it has been great for the economy and for the growth. The students are taught responsibility along with the wine consumption. So I don’t know that it’s going to be as big an issue by putting it on colleges or elsewhere. Yes, they spit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Orange, Representative Insko, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the Conference Report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, there are several provisions in this. I agree with other speakers that there are on these omnibus bills always some provisions you like and some you hate. I think you have to pick out what’s really important and whether or not the provisions that are, that weaken the bill are so bad that you need to vote against it. For me, there are several issues in here that deal with public health. Specifically there are several issues that deal with on-site waste water, septic upgrades, number 40 has to do with the owners upgrading obsolete septic systems. Theses are public health issues. I think you can’t compromise. You can’t compromise when it comes to public health. We have a very strong public health tradition in this state. And as our state grows, those are going to be more and more important. The other one that bothers me is the isolated wetlands. And that deals with water too, with public health. We’ve always been a water-wealthy state, but not anymore. As we’ve grown and as we’ve had more water pollution

We are no longer the water wealthy state we once were, and we're seeing more, more droughts come through. So we, we have to be careful about doing anything that, that increases potential for pollution, and for those reasons I'll be voting against the bill, and I would urge others to vote no on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to adopt the conference report to Senate bill 734. So many favoring the motion will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Sixty four having voted in the affirmative and twenty seven in the negative, the conference report is adopted. The Senate will be notified by special messenger. And enrolled and sent to the Governor by special messenger. House will be at ease. House bill 1086, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask about 1086. Is this the one that we previously agreed would come on, without objection would come on? Having to do with the railroad tracks? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is. That's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate committee substitute for House bill 1086, a bill to be entitled an act to establish North Carolina and South Carolina rail compact. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Brunswick, Representative Iler rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. I agree with my colleague, Representative Waddell, who was scheduled months ago to be out of town to run this bill for Columbus county. This is a regional, economic development effort to start talking to South Carolina about an abandoned rail line that they’re trying to bring back up to class one status and connect with CSX for freight purposes. It's mostly a study and a five member commission that will fall under commerce. And there's no additional appropriations of state money and it'd be mostly private money to build this, and mostly in South Carolina. There's about twenty miles that come over into North Carolina around Whitevillle and Chadbourn and will connect to CSX down near Mullins, South Carolina. So it's economic development for our area. There's a little concern about the Representatives from Columbus County, but the Senator from Columbus county, my senator, also support this. It passed forty five to nothing in the Senate and all we need to do is pass it in the House and let them start talking to South Carolina about this rail line. Thank you mister speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from, is the gentleman from Brunswick making a motion that the House do concur with the Senate committee substitute for House bill 1086? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, the chair accepts that motion. That's the motion before the body. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ashe, Representative Jordan rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Brunswick yield to the gentleman from Ashe? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative for yielding to this question. Here we are on the last day, presumably, of a long short session, and this is the first I've heard of this compact that we want to create. Can you explain a little bit about why this has come up now? If we had not happened to meet today, it would have just sat in committee? What is the timeliness? Why do we need to deal with this right now when we're dealing with some other important things? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, it's economic development, but the timing on it, it left here as a different bill, and this was PCSed in the House, the Senate transportation committee and sent back over and came over on July 31st. And I didn't know much about it, and so it was sidetracked at that time in the rules committee until we learned more about it. I was contacted by NC railroad and other stakeholders that they wanted to go ahead with this and be able to start talking about it with South Carolina. It could wait until next session, but I think

It’s our job, economic development, I think timeliness is important. The next session will be at least six months away, before we can take any action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Brunswick yield to an additional question from the gentleman from Ashe? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry. Could you tell me which House Committee it was looked at in? Did you say Rules? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. We left here and came out of House Transportation but it was not the same bill, obviously. It was PCSd in the Senate Transportation, came back and it’s been to Rules in the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a third question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This issue has not been dealt with in a House Transportation Committee of any sort? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It has not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenberg, Representative Jeter, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is great. This bill deals with my two favorite things. South Carolina and freight. I’ve been waiting a year for this bill. Please push green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Bladen Representative Brisson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, Representative Iler’s absolutely right. This doesn’t pertain to my district but it deals with my neighboring counties. It’s very important to small towns. ?? is one of them. The bill has, it’s changed a lot just like a lot of other things from the Senate. ?? Senate held onto it. They held onto it for, since it was started. But it finally got it released and back over here because it’s not something brand new coming up at the last minute. But it is about a small railroad that they’re trying to keep existing. It runs from South Carolina, a couple small towns, over into Columbus County and ?? County. They’re just trying to hang onto their transportation so they can have a little rail service to these small towns. Not big business but it’s very important to the small rural areas in Columbus and Roberson County so I’m just asking you to support this bill and it’s not going to cost a lot of money but it would cause the same thing that we’re doing ?? County when they move that little section out and affected their economy the way it has and it would have a lot of problems trying to get that little section put back in. So when you take out the rail section, it’s hard to ever get it back, so these folks are just trying to hang onto what they’ve got. So anything we can do to help them, I know that they appreciate it and thank you for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenberg, Representative Brawley, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. Having some involvement in rails through the Virginia-North Carolina high speed rail compact, I did refer this bill to Department of Transportation and Nick Tennyson and said tell me what’s going on, make your recommendations. They kept thoroughly vetted the bill and expressed to me yesterday they were fine with it the way it is, and were comfortable with the bill going forward. And at that point, I informed Representative Iler I would support what he wanted to do on the bill. He is closest to Transportation Chair to that specific location and I recommend your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbitt, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] See if the Representative from Bladen would yield to a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Bladen yield to the gentleman from Gaston? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative. You mention in your comments that it wasn’t going to cost a whole lot of money. And my question is, do you have any idea where the funding is coming from? Because I can’t seem to make that determination. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s a good question. And I’ve been looking through the budget and I can’t find a lot of things where the funding’s coming from so I can’t deal with that one for you either. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Bladen yield for an additional question from the gentleman from Gaston? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now that we’ve determined that we don’t know where it’s coming from, can you tell me how much might be required? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, not to, I think it’s kind of a bit more of a study bill. You can ask Mr. Iler ?? but I don’t think it’s going to cost a lot to study it. It’s too small to be a lot of cost. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you

Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose, does the gentleman wish to debate or. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He reference, if I might ask Representative Iler a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Brunswick yield to the gentleman for Gaston? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gladly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you representative. He asked me to ask you this question. I think in your comments you said mostly private funds and if you know how much is on the other side of the mostly like is I'm just trying to get my handle on what's it gonna cost the people in North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually I asked this question to our staff and it does say in the bill this is for the purpose of the compact and the commission to come up with the plan. And it says in the bill they can except funding from South Carolina, from North Carolina and Federal funding, donations or any kind of contributions from South and/or North Carolina, local or regional economic development organizations. So that five different possible sources, but this bill doesn't include any kind of appropriation to develop a plan as to how to bring up to class 1 and start the freight moving. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I speak on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Brunswick wishes to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The subject of timing has come up and one of the last minute reasons for the last minute bill coming over was that some of the stakeholders or owners in South Carolina thinking the Myrtle Beach area that own some of this property and own some of the rail lines just last two weeks decided that they would cooperate and so. Also I've been told by a member of the NC Railroad by text a few minutes ago that we could put this off but that if we pass it before South Carolina passes it we can control the language. So a little bit of let's go ahead and get ahead of the curve idea. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Ash Representative Jordan rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of Representative Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Yancey yield to the gentleman from Ash? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative it looks like your name was a primary sponsor, the primary sponsor, on the previous House Bill 1086. Can you discuss what that was and how it turned into this last minute North Carolina, South Carolina compact because of some landowners in South Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This was a bill for signage on the main roads for our state parks so the people would know how to get to them. And that was all that was in the bill. Representative McNeill and I were on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Followup. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady yield to a second question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Did that issue get dealt with elsewhere in legislation or is it being completed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No not that I'm aware of. It was just a hijacked. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman wish to debate the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Ash has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This may be something really good to study and look into. I just think it's been done here at the last minute. It's gutted a previous bill from one of our members about something an issue that's not been dealt with. And I just question the timing and I question some of the issues surrounding it and just something probably can wait until next long session. So I'll be voting red. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion for the debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur with the city committees substitute for House Bill 1086. So many favoring the motion will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 77 having voted in the affirmative and 13 in the negative, the motion passes. The bill is ordered and rolled and sent to the Governor by special messenger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ray please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquire to the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can the speaker give the members any vision of what's going on for the rest of the day possibly into tomorrow or Monday. We're hearing different things but could you give us a little input on that please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Representative Ray that's actually why I've taken the chair so that I could do that that very thing because the two bills that we intend to add to the calendar are interrelated. The conference report for House Bill 1224 and the Senate Bill 718. There's also another matter that will, a lot of this happens for those of you who are fairly new to the process when we're this far into

This session] you have to use whatever vehicles are available to move measures and all 3 of these Bills relate to one another. The House Bill 1224 it’s the Bill that had catalyst funds I think, the project for JMAC, the fix for UI (unemployment insurance) that bill, it’s the intent of the Chair to take a vote on that Bill. Senate Bill 718, depending upon the deposition of House Bill 1224, is a proposal from the Senate that actually does a couple of things. One, it fixes the technical language that was in my opinion an error in the budget that has some of the TA allocations in limbo. If we do not pass that, then it will be a problem, particularly for the smaller districts and it’s the intent of the Chair to try and fix that, to make sure the smaller districts are able to use the funding and have the flexibility to fund the TA positions. It also addresses the problem that existed with how funds could be used and County Commission and the School Boards per view. We’ll talk about this, I’m not going to go through a debate right now, I’m trying to give you a general sense. What that effectively does is correct some language and some of the concerns that we had in 1224. We’re going to use House Bill 189, which is in conference, I will be discharging the current conferees momentarily and appointing new ones and that Bill will have a correction that extends the Wake County Referendum for the tax referendum to November of 2016. They’re concerns expressed about the measure in 1214, which provide 94 counties the same local tax option that only 6 counties have today. This will allow them to have that, the problem was that there a measure in there that was effectively going to eliminate Wake County’s ability to do that tax referendum. This will give Wake County the option to do that tax referendum and grant the additional ¼ cent up until 2016. That language will be in the Conference Report 189, which will be read in today and I have a formal agreement by the Senate that they will pass that measure. So, were taking those 3 Bills in succession. It could be [moved] because frankly if Bill 1224 were to fail, then the TA correction will not happen, nor the local option tax for the 94 counties that currently do not have it. Having said that, do you have any questions related to that? So, it would effectively today, depending upon the outcome of House Bill 1224, we may take the additional vote on 718, which corrects 1224 in a way that I believe is more towards the position of the House and then House Bill 189 takes it even further with respect to the Wake County referendum. Representative Wray please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If I’m not mistaken, you have rules committtee Senate Bill 364 for teachers assistance. Is that going to be taken up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That Bill may or may not be taken up today. It certainly will not be taken up before these other measures. The House Conference Committee for House Bill 189 current conferees Stevens, Glacier, Hall, Moore are hereby discharged. New conferees are Lewis Chair, Stevens, Moore and Tine. The Senate will be so notified. Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I move that House Bill 1224 be removed from the Committee on rules and added to today’s calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection [haven’t] raised. Representative Moore is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank Mr. Speaker, members. House Bill 1224 is the Bill the Speaker was just explaining, this is the local sales tax option and economic development changes legislation that we sent to the Rules Committee a week or two ago. This Bill had been worked on in the [interim], there’s a Conference Report of course that is set to be dealt with

And as the chair explained, that conference report is being modified, assuming it is being adopted, by Senate bill 718 and by, I believe, 198 or 189, whatever the other bill was, to bring it closer to the House's position. The, and I'm sure folks will want to have a spirited debate on the actual, on the actual bill, but, and so I won't get into the merits of the bill right now myself. Although I could, but I don't think it's proper. The only question right now is to have the bill removed from the committee. Now as to the procedural posture, it is completely appropriate to do it. This is a conference report. Traditionally conference reports are not referred to committee. It's, it does not require a dip in committee, but we sent it to committee. Wanted to let the Senate know at the time that we were not agreeable to the language as it was. I believe that has served its purpose. The Senate's position has softened. The Senate has, has worked with us and negotiated, I would say, in good faith to make some other changes to the other legislation the Speaker has laid out. So regardless of your position on the bill, I would certainly ask for your vote on this procedural motion that the bill be brought before us and so that we can tend to the peoples' business. And I would urge the body's yes vote to at least bring the bill out of committee and to the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak against the adoption of the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is actually debating the motion to add to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the motion, mister speaker, I apologize, to the motion. Members of the House, this is a bad step that we would be taking right now to even put this bill on the floor. It was in the rules committee, comes out of the rules committee, but as members of the finance committee will remember, there were a huge number of questions that were raised about this bill when it was heard in the finance committee, the substance of this bill. Those questions have not been answered. This bill has not gone back to the finance committee for it to be considered, and really, it really needs to be. This is a major, major bill, as people remember. First of all, it was not referenced earlier, but this is a bill that could raise the sales tax in our counties. And it's important to recognize that, that as a consequence of this bill, you are allowing referenda to take place without really firm discussion on the floor or in the committee about the implications of this sales tax for our counties. And we just are not having that discussion. The impact on the rural counties, the poor rural counties and what would be meant if this sales tax were on, were on the agenda. For these reasons I think the conference report really ought to be referred to finance. Representative Moore has said this doesn't happen, or doesn't need to happen. It really happens whenever many, many members object to the bill going, coming directly to the floor. In this case I would say, members, we should have this bill back in finance. It has many pieces in it. It came over suddenly, the conference report. We did not really know what was in it when it came over suddenly, and members I would urge you, just on motion, not to get to the substance of the bill, on the motion, to vote no because it has not been properly heard in committee. Thank you members. Vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion to add to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. Going back to House bill 1086, something that we worked on just a few moments ago and Representative Jordan made quite a point about, what's the sudden rush? Well it seems that we could say the very same thing about 1224. It's been languishing in the Senate for about a month, and now Representative Moore tells us that there's really been some behind the scenes work going on with the Senate and the Senate's been amenable in them. I tell you folks, if the Senate's been amenable to anything you've got a news flash. But now we're asked to, as a House

To tumble again, to roll over, do what the Senate sends over, and you’re going to have do it without me. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker not a long speech, the various ingredients of 1224, I’ve made long speeches before. Two weeks ago this house would have defeated that bill 80 to 30, it’s still the same turkey it was then. I hope you’ll vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the gentleman maybe debating the bill versus the motion. I think the gentlemen wants him to vote yes on this. Do you want to add to the calendar today? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, then you want to vote no then. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeeter please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It seems to me that there is a procedural effort here so we don’t add this to the calendar. That’s all well and good because typically we don’t like to add things to the calendar because we think the outcome of the Bill will be against our wishes. My concern is, as Representative Stam said, the overwhelming majority of us would have voted no, adding to the calendar to the calendar, having it fail may suit your purposes. My guess is, if we vote no and don’t add it to the calendar, you may win for one day. You may see me tomorrow morning, in this same suit, voting on this same bill and then procedurally you’ve accomplished nothing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from [Mclanberg] is correct, if this motion fails, we will be taking a vote on this tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar please state purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It may not be a common thing, but there is a reason why there’s a motion and reason why there is a opportunity to object and to have a vote. The purpose of that is to determine if it is truly the will of this body to bring this matter before us here, on what may not be the last day but close to the last day. I think it is perfectly appropriate in order to not have to take up 1224, to vote no on this motion. So, you can vote on this motion and it takes care of al lot of matters on the calendar and if it comes again tomorrow then a vote can be taken as well or any subsequent day. So I would encourage you to vote no on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis please state you purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry for the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is my understanding in the response to Mr. Jeeter, that if this Bill is not added to the calendar, we will be taking a vote tomorrow. If this bill is actually added to the calendar, and the Bill is voted upon, and it passes, would we or would we not already have to be here to vote on it again to anyways? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, it is a 2 day bill, it simply means it will come back on Monday as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a clarification for the body, while I think of Representative Floyd here, no matter what happens here there is a high potential that we’re going to be here tomorrow, regardless. Correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of the Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just make sure I understand, if we vote not to put this thing out on the floor today, that we’re going to be here tomorrow to put it on the floor again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, tomorrow it will have been read today and will be on the on calendar tomorrow by rule without a motion, it will be on the calendar tomorrow by default. This is simply a matter of whether or not use today as a productive time versus just coming back and starting the second reading tomorrow. To the point of the Representative Millis, should the Bill pass today, we would take second reading tomorrow, it would be the only matter on the calendar and then we would dispose of it and sent it to the Senate. Then, there would be no need for a Monday session. Representative Collins please state you purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Folks, I don’t like this Bill, I didn’t like it when it left, didn’t like it when it came back, but all we’re doing if we vote no on this motion, is extending our stay here in Raleigh another day. So, lets go ahead, if you don’t like, let’s vote on it today and vote no. So, I would ask you to vote yes on this motion, even if like me, you’re going to vote no on the Bill

Representative Bob Gardner, please state your purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree with Representative Collins that we should have, let's debate the bill. I'm going to vote yes on the motion to bring the bill forward today and let's have a debate and vote on this bill today. Delaying a vote on the bill, or delaying discussion on the bill is not the thing to do in my opinion. i think we should go on right now, let's handle this thing right now that we're here and dispose of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Question before the house is the motion by Representative Moore to add House Bill 1224 to today's calendar. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. Pro Tempore will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The machine has recorded the vote. 44 have voted in the affirmative, 46 in the negative. The motion fails. The house is being recessed until 4:30. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Democrats or caucass, right now, regular meeting room. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the house are going to stay in recess until 5:15. The house have come to order. Ladies and gentlemen, I apologize for the delay. I wanted the confer with the senate. I've decided that, rather than having a session tomorrow, we are going to ajourn shortly subject to introduction of bills and resolutions and other provisions. There will be no other votes. We are going to ajourn with the intent to come back on Monday at 5. There is a possibility that it would be 2 days. That the matters that are on the floor will require 2 days of votes. We are sorting out now whether or not those two days would be Monday and Tuesday, or Wednesday and Thursday. The chair assumes, that after the matters have been disposed of, one way or the other, we will then ajourn sign and dive without any provisions for November session. We've consulted with the senate and we've made it clear it's the intent of the house to ajourn and ajourn the session for the remainder of the year. So, for your purposes now, you need to plan on being here at 5 pm on Monday. At the moment that we that determine that it may be on Wednesday, we will let you know. We will give you as much notice as possible, certainly before Monday morning. It may be as late as Sunday before we know. Notices and annoucements. Representative Stars, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. The Republicans will caucass at 3:00 pm on Monday [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pipman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A point personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privelege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, it's a pretty sad point of personal priveledge. We had a member of my church named Larry Smith, an army veteran from Vietnam, who was a victim of Agent Orange. The Vers administration never acknowledged his lungs problems as being from Agent Orange. They did acknowledge his bladder cancer as being from Agent Orange and then, not too long ago, he also became a victim of Parkinsons. After a long, courageous battle, they thought he'd been dead 2, 3 years ago, but because of his loving wife Brenda taking such good care of him and being so devoted to him, he lasted a lot longer than they thought he would. Larry was an excellent Christian, a man who just loved people and went out of his way to do good for others. He died this morning. I need to get home to his family as soon as I can. I would appreciate if you all would be praying for the family of Larry Smith. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, the chair would also remind the members that our friend and colleague, Langdon's wife,

00:00 having back surgery today I hope you will keep [??] your thoughts and prayers representative Grier Martin please state your purpose. for a point of personal privilege. the gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. thank you very much Mr speaker members I regret to inform the body that sergeant first class Samuel Hirsten was killed in Afghanistan Monday he was a platoon sergeant and alpha [??] first battalion [??] force parachute infantry regiment in 82nd airborne division at [??] he's survived by his wife staff sergeant [??] and his son Haden ask that you keep his family in your thoughts and prayers. representative Wray please state your purpose. for an announcement. the gentleman is recognized for an announcement. house democrats will [??] Monday ar four o'clock in room 1425. further notices and announcements representative Baskerville please state your purpose. moment of personal privilege. the gentleman's recognized for a point of personal privilege. along the same lines one of our colleagues Ed Hanes Jr. is not here today because his father is in the ICU and so let's keep Ed and his family in our prayers over the weekend. representative Collins please state your purpose. point of personal privilege. the gentleman's recognized for a point of personal privilege. well I wasn't gonna say anything but I thought maybe after all those announces we could use some happier new happy to announce that Wednesday morning I've received the good news about 9:30 that my daughter had given birth to her third child and my wife and I's fifth grandchild a nine pound two ounce boy Micha Jude [??] born in the triage room before they could get to delivery room in UNC womens' hospital. representative Moore please state your purpose. for a motion if there's no further announcements. the gentleman is recognized for a motion. Mr speaker I move that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Monday August the 18th at 5 pm subject to ratification of bills messages from the senate receipt of committee reports receipt of conference reports re-referral of bills and resolutions appointment of conferees introductions of bills and resolutions committee appointments and modifications to the calender. representative Moore moves seconded by representative Dollar that the house will now adjourn subject to ratification of bills and resolutions receipt of messages from the senate receipt of committee reports conference reports re-referral of bills and resolutions appointment of conferees introduction of bills and resolutions and modifications to the calender to reconvene Monday the 18th at 5 pm all in favor say aye. aye. all opposed no the ayes have it the house stands adjourned. 03:00