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 | June 18, 2013 | Committee Room | Transportation

Full MP3 Audio File

Would the members take their seats? A quorum being present, the House Committee on Transportation is now in order. Our Sergeants at Arms today are Carlton Adams, Marvin Lee, Jesse Hayes, and Martha Parish. We’re also served by some pages, James German from Wake County, Micah Giles from Stanley, Yasmine Harrison from Rockingham County, Jeda Hester from Wake, and Andrea Keever from Rutherford. Ms. Carter and Mr. Perry our staff are with us today. Representative or excuse me, Co-Chairman Iler is recognized for a moment of privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A gentleman is among us today and he’s on his telephone device right now, but I served with him for a term-and-a-half and I actually served with him as a Co-Chair at one time of the Transportation Committee and enjoyed every minute of it, as well as the Subcommittee on Appropriations for Transportation. I’d like to welcome Representative Grier Martin back to the Transportation Committee. Over here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Martin, welcome back. Senate Bill 377, “Suspend Truck Inspection/Severe Weather.” Do we have a PCS on this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Has that been distributed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’ve got it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK, motion by Representative Catlin, second by Representative Brown that the PCS be properly in front of us. Is there objection? Without objection, Representative Dixon will present the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee. This bill before us now in essence is almost identical to House Bill 584 which we passed out of this committee sometime ago. That was my bill. It is over in the Senate, but with agreement with Senator Jackson we changed a little bit of the language to make it a better bill. Therefore we’re considering the Senate bill over here. This bill seeks to allow the governor to suspend routine weight inspections upon the recommendation of the Commissioner of Agriculture. The necessity for this or the benefit of this is in the event of imminent danger from approaching storms or whatever the need to get the crops or livestock in a situation that is beneficial to the producer the Commissioner of Agriculture can recommend to the governor and he can suspend these routine inspections. There is probable cause indicated there if the troopers see that there’s a danger beyond and this will be removed after the danger of loss, not the passing of the storm, but the danger of loss is concerned. Be happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion when appropriate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] OK. Representative Martin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair, it’s good to be back. Why do we not tie the expiration of the authority we grant under the statute to the expiration of the governor’s executive order? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would say that there might be somebody from the Department here that could address that better than I do, other than Representative Martin. The trigger here is when the threat…The governor could suspend the order but the threat could still be there for livestock. For example, in a cornfield, if the storm is passed, there’s no longer a threat, he lifts his order, but the ear of corn is still touching the ground. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. Representative Cleveland is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Favorable report on a proposed House Committee substitute to Senate Bill 377, unfavorable to the original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion by Representative Cleveland, favorable to the proposed committee substitute on Senate Bill 377, unfavorable to the original bill. All in favor say, “Aye.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed? Motion carries. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Dixon.

Senate Bill 461. Senator Wade is recognized to present the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hi there, thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill is brought to you today because of a constituent I had called me. They had a problem with actually getting their commercial driver's licence. They work during the week 8-5 and that's when it's available at the DMV. This is really not a change. Before they were allowed to do third party administration of allowing them to take the road test and then in a sealed envelope take it to the DMV to see if they had passed the road test and to eventually get their license. The first part of this bill just allows a citizen that might want to be able to get a commercial driver's license so he can do weekend work to be able to go on a weekend and do his road test. The real problem was, DMV's open 8 to 5 and there's only special DMV's that will allow you actually to do the road test. The second part of this bill, another constituent actually called me from the road, he was a trucker, and he was out on a load and he had his commercial driver's license and it was good for, I think, 4 more years, but what happened was, he went back and he got a HAZMAT license and they did what's called an add-on. Well when they did the add-on, that triggered it to a temporary license of 20 days, which was a tremendous problem for him because he was out on one of these long hauls, and actually, what happened was his license, the temporary permit ran out, and they hadn't mailed it to him yet and he had to pull his rig over on the side of the road and wait until someone could send it to him, mail it to him, or bring it to him, so that was a bit of a problem. So we're trying to rectify that, so instead of the 20 days it moves it to 60 days if you have a commercial driver's license. And I'll be glad to answer any questions, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there any questions for the presenter? Has DMV weighed in on this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir they have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Chairman, this is a simple question: Now that DMV's, some DMV's are operating now on Saturdays, will the commercial driver's license test be given, that you know of, through DMV on some of the Saturdays? Is there anyone here than can answer that? That would help for those who work during the week. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sandra Wade [SPEAKER CHANGES] My understanding is, it has nothing to do with the commercial driver's license test, this test they have to do, the road test, can only be administered if you're a certified person to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up: Is there someone here from DMV that can speak to that? To see if that would be an opportunity, since we're moving into a new direction of customer service and opening up on Saturdays, I would think we would also be applicable to our commercial drivers and those that are making a living by driving commercial trucks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have a representative DMV present? Would you press the button, tell us your name and title please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm Robbie Quinn. I'm the manager of commercial driver's licenses with DMV. At present time, we do not have any of our offices that offer the Saturday skills test if that was your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As applicable to commercial driver's licensing tests [SPEAKER CHANGES] We do not have any of our sites that offer the skills test on Saturdays or extended hours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? Representative McElraft [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank your Mr. Chair. I assume that in the description here in this subsection B there is a section that describes who this third party should be, because there is no description in what I have here as to what the qualifications of the third party is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have a- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am, my understanding is the third party persons are certified to do this. During the week they work for trucking companies, and that's their job at a trucking company, but they're certified and they can do it on the weekends or other times because they have gone through the certification is my understanding, and they actually do tests, put it in a sealed envelope, and the applicant takes it to the DMV to find out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? Representative Wilkins

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Request of the Chair while we have the DMV gentleman here would he return to the mike please? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Mr. Chair I would ask that we might try to determine from him what exactly DMV stance is on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: That's a good one. What is DMV's stance on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Well, our stance on it was neutral. We realize that there's gonna be some additional hours involved but it's hard for us to tell what the impact is gonna be as far as how many people would be doing the skills testing on the weekends, and so it would require us additional man hours to cover the skills testing that's done on the weekend, which we're required by federal regulations to monitor the skills testing, covertly and overtly, so it's hard for us to determine exactly what the impact would be. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman and to the Bill sponsor a follow up to Representative McElraft's question about the third party. In the statute does it state that these are state certified third party people or maybe that's one of the staff? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yeah, thank you Mr. Chair. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Federal law and state law require these third party skills testing operations to be certified and they're governed by both federal and state law. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: That's it. Thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. For the DMV guy. Do we personally have any third party testing being done testing being done in the state at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: You mean, you mean during the week Monday through Friday? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: At any time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Oh, absolutely, yes sir. We have probably more than 125 organizations that participate in the third party testing program at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: If we already have this program enforced, number one, I don't see the need for the Bill and number two, why would DMV be concerned about manpower and funding if you're not already following the third party certified people. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Presently, we do not have any testing that's done on the weekend. We govern that by policy and there was a policy put in force back a couple of years ago that stated that we wanted all the third party testing done Monday through Friday from 8:00 to 5:00 so that we could properly monitor all the testing that was being done. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: If we have certified third party testers, why are we constantly monitoring. I can understand occasionally going out and making sure they're doing what they're supposed to be doing but you're giving me the impression that we have a DMV person there watching them as their certifying the drivers. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Cleveland, staff would like to address the issue if that's be all right. Mr. Perry. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Cleveland, the law requires DMV to audit and monitor the third party skills testing. DMV has made a policy decision to only allow that Monday through Friday. Federal law would authorize them to do it on other days if state law and DMV policy authorized it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: I don't believe that was my question. My question was if they're doing it now, and I understand that federal law allows them to do it, why are they concerned about additional ?? for weekends? I'm starting to have a lot of problems with this. If DMV says they want to do it from 8 to 5, that's their problem, and if it's causing a problem for the customers they should be flexible enough to change their policies and to go to weekends vice having availabilities until 8:00 in the evening for testing.

Strikes me as jumping into the swimming pool: we don't have to. Speaker :Thank you, representative Starnes Starnes -Let me follow up on my thoughts. The federal government requires that you monitor the classes, but to satisfy the requirement of the federal government are you required to have someone from DMV present every time a third party administer is running the skills test? Respondent --- No sir we are not. We are involved in two types of monitoring. The overt monitoring of course is when they know that we there ; and , the other part is the covert monitoring. That is when they don't know we are there; and so , we need to be able to d that, the covert monitoring at any time; and, naturally if we have people that are doing the test on the weekend; and the reason we changed the policy is that we had people that were exclusively doing the test on the weekend; and, there may have been various reasons for that, but we kind of got the feeling that some of these people were doing it only on the weekends because we knew or they knew that we could not or would not do the monitoring on the weekends weather it is covert or overt; and, that is why we changed the policy, to only allow the testing to be done Monday through Friday. Starnes -One follow up then- So the intent of the deal is to be customer friendly to accommodate people who cannot get their skills test done at any time except for the weekend; and, what your saying is that if we have this change in policy then there is going to be an additional cost from DMV because you will have to have some people out there either covertly or overtly monitoring these third party skills tests on the weekends. And one last question; do you have an estimate of what the cost is going to be ? Respondent -We did an estimate and we figured it up to be; it came up to forty-seven thousand dollars was the estimate on that which would equate probably to one position, one staff specialist and CDO compliance officer. Speaker : representative White, did you wish to further comment? White -Yes sir thank you. - It is not only just the weekend. It is the person that is working from eight to five at another job that cant come and do the testing. The other thing is the same people providing the test. The certified testers are doing it through the week and they certainly could come out and inspect them during the week. We did have a fiscal note of forty-seven thousand. We did check on that; but, the main object of this is to be customer friendly, to allow people that are in need to take a second job and want to drive a truck for another company, that they can get training and they can have the option to do that. Not all DMVs allow the testing either. You have to go to a special DMV in order to have that test administered. So, not only can they not go on weekends and after five; they have to find the rite DMV also. Speaker :representative Mckelrath Mckelrath -I think I've got most of my questions answered but I'll just make a comment. I think its certainly worth forty-seven thousand dollars;but, I would think that maybe the DMV could re arrange some schedules where they didn't have as many monitors during the week and put some people on the weekends to accommodate these trucking companies. It is very important that we get these trucks out there and get more gas tax, fix our roads. Speaker :representative Bombgarner Bombgarner -Thank you Mr chairman. The question I was going to ask she just answered already;but, yeh we are trying to make it more friendly, business friendly for people that want to go to work. Lets let them go to work. The same people that are doing the testing that do it through the week, I cant believe that the DMV couldn't re arrange a couple of peoples schedules to be off on Friday or Monday and work on Saturday.

The question I wanted to ask ?? about become more business friendly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative. Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I understand that the gentleman said that the division was neutral on the position so they apparently can accommodate if the committee sees fit, I'd like to make a motion, please, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's noted, sir. Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. For another comment and a question to DMV again. Since we already expanding the hours for DMV for those that aren't commercial trucks and it looks like I've been told we're gonna continue to expand that throughout the state. Is there not a reason we can't expand that in to and allow commercial trucks to also receive their license and do what they need to do on the weekends like we are, the rest of the public. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I guess we could do that. We were trying to concentrate on the other aspects of DMV where we could serve the most people. Get the most bang for the buck. It takes approximately two hours to conduct a CDL skills test and we were thinking two hours that you could probably wait on ten or fifteen people in those two hours. So that's probably the reason that we haven't done that so far. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was gonna make a motion, but I would make a comment that Senator Wade is right. These testing sites are not in all of our counties. So not only are these drivers handicapped with Monday through Friday, they've gotta figure out the time to be able to travel to these sites. I've had many requests for this, just to help them expedite getting their testing done. So I support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Martin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I fully support the policy of this. This something I like a service for us to provide for our citizens and, like Representative McElraft, I do think the price tag is one worth paying. My only question is where's the money gonna come from? Does this have in its road map a dip in appropriations committee and if not, does it need to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I've asked that question it does not need to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. So how are we gonna pay for this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sure we'll be happy to accept your checks, sir. Representative Faircloth is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? ?? ?? ?? transportation committee substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth moves a favorable report on senate bill 461. So many as favor the motion say aye. All opposed. Motion carries. Senator Wade, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate bill 493: prohibit after market HID headlights. Do we have someone to run that bill? Alright, we'll displace it. Senate bill 568: bioptic lenses for driver's license tests. Senator Brock. The gentleman has recognized to explain the bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This is similar to, actually it's identical to a house deal that was introduced by Representative Arp and Representative Bell. It's biopic lenses for driver's license tests. Currently there are 37, maybe 39 other states that allow some form of driving with bioptic lenses, therefore allow it to be used for tests. If you go through the legislation and looking through the different parts of all the different criteria that one must meet so they can drive with bioptic lenses and bioptic lenses are technically just a small set of binoculars that are on top of the glass, kind of like bifocals that for the top so when someone's driving has some type of visual impairment they can look forward and look to see road signs, stop lights and other issues to answer any other questions for it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? Motion an appropriate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Actually, I have a question, Chairman Brawley, right here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Representative Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a question either Senator Brock or the staff, is this identical to the bill that ?? we sent over to you guys. Is the language the same? I know we to tweak my original draft after consulting with DMV. Do you know, or Brock, do you want me to ask staff if it's identical? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think we need to ask staff. I thought it was identical, but let me check. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Perry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't have the bill in front of me but to my knowledge it is the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to follow up to Senator Brock. DMV blessed this bill also to

They went through mine. We made some changes. Do you know if yours, if they did the same? That's all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know, if DMV is here today, if they want to comment on it, I believe they were. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. Jason Soper is recognized for DMV. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jason Soper with NCDOT. Senator Brock, yes, we brought the language that Representative Moore had put through this committee earlier to your office, and it should be the exact same language. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Right. I notice that Connie Wilson wants to address the committee on behalf of. Okay. The lady is recognized for a period not to exceed two minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. My name's Connie Wilson. I'm the lobbyist for the ophthalmologist. We support the bill but feel very strongly that there's a provision that needs to be added to the bill. If you look on page 1, Section TC where it requires an ophthalmologist or an optometrist to determine the field of vision - which we agree that should be our responsibility - but what we cannot do as doctors is determine if a driver can actually drive safely with the bioptic lenses. That needs to be done with a road test. There's about forty states in the country, give or take a few - I don't have the exact numbers, but it's around forty - that allow bioptic lenses to be used for taking drivers' test and driving. Around half of those require either training or a behind-the-wheel road test. This bill is permissive about it but doesn't require it. We believe, for road safety, it's important to require it. DMV is opposed to that. When we bring up the issue to them, what they tell us is that they don't want the liability issue if there's an accident that occurs because somebody has passed their road test. They don't want the liability. And my answer is, "Well, doctors don't give road tests. We can just tell you what we can see. Why do you want to put the liability on us?" I believe there's a way to work up compromise language here, that if somebody in another state has a driver's license that's passed this road test, that they can use their bioptic lens here, and that we can have safety on the roads in North Carolina. So, I encourage the committee to support an amendment that would require an on-the-road test to ensure safety. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I have Representative Dollar. Didn't you raise your hand? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative Carney? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Miss Wilson, to answer my question on that. It's a request, if the test is requested, that it not require. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have some concerns if we have the state not wanting to test potential drivers because of some liability that might be out there. It seems to me that we have professional eye surgeons who are saying they can tell us whether or not the sight is appropriate for the person. But then the state doesn't want to take responsibility of testing the driver. They can almost take that position if I go out there to take the test because of my age or something. And it would seem to me that a minor amendment to this, requiring them to test these drivers, and we're only talking about, I believe, a hundred or so in North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think that might be appropriate. I'd like to send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Do you have the amendment prepared? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. ?? And alright. Do y'all have copies to distribute, or this is just it? Okay. I'm going to read it, and if anybody needs a copy, let me know. We'll have copies made. Deleting the phrase - This is on page 1, lines 23 and 24 of the bill. - Deleting the phrase, "if a road test is requested" and, on page 1, line 27, by deleting the word "may" and substituting the word "shall". Does anyone need a copy of the amendment? Okay. Is there discussion or debate on the amendment? Representative Bumgardner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move we adopt the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Any further discussion or debate? So many as favor the amendment, say "Aye", opposed "No". The amendment carries. The bill, as amended, is now before us. Further discussion, further debate on the bill amended. Representative Cleveland is recognized for a motion.

00:00 thank you Mr chairman we're gonna roll this into a PCS because it has amended. I guess the appropriate motion would be to favor report to senate bill 568 as amended rolled into a new PCS. thank you. motion by representative Cleveland to roll the amended version of senate bill 568 into a new proposed committee substitute so many as favor the motion say aye. aye. all opposed..motion carries thank you senator Brock. thank you Mr chairman members of the committee. senate bill 709 representative Iler will present allow DOT to set max speed limit 75 miles per hour. thank you Mr chairman I'm presenting [??] and straightforward on page one of the bill where in line 22 we're striking out 70 and putting in 75 miles per hour and the bill summary I noticed that the last item in the bill summary that it says current speed [??] in the state more than 50 miles per hour over limit and more than 80 miles per hour is class three misdemeanor license suspension [??] miles an hour at the time of the offense so you go over 80 or more than 80 excuse me you can apparently go 80 without being a class three misdemeanor but you still cannot go more than 80 which is the case now at [??] and it is involving as you see certain interstate highways not roads [??] and of course it's at the discretion of DOT as it is now at 70 miles an hour. representative Rodney Moore. quick point of clarification so you would raise the speed limit up to 75 but if you can still go you would to 15 over rule wouldn't apply anymore you will only be allowed to go 5 miles over the speed limit. it says 15 miles per hour over limit or more than 80 miles per hour. okay. yes sir. okay so that won't change. no apparently it will not. because [??]. follow up. I'm okay. representative Carney. a question for the bill sponsor could you please tell me what is the [??] for raising this to 75 what is the criteria that has come forward with a need to increase it from 70 to 75. representative Iler. I have consulted with the sponsors to find out the impetus that they had but common sense I've heard much discussion that everybody's doing it anyway I'm not trying to be funny but that's basically all I know at this point. follow up question. follow up. I've always maybe this is a question for staff and a crazy question I've always heard that the faster you go the more gas you burn in your engine is that a true or false statement. I don't have any data on that. I'm getting my answer from the comments I'm hearing. I'll give you that answer off-land but I don't wanna answer from the [??]. it seems like a strange way to increase our [??] around here for the gas tax increase without raising the tax but I'll tell you you know the 15 miles [??] and now the 5 mile per hour [??] I travel to Wilmington occasionally to see my daughter and grandchildren down there and that's a straight shot flat and highway and tempted to set the cruise on 80 over the 70 mile per hour speed limit and I don't but I have had people blow by me doing probably the 15 the 85 and it's frightening to be it's like being on a race track almost sometimes I'm travelling from [??] to Rawley I know this is probably gonna pass people are doing it anyway but I do believe there is a safety issue I can't support it [??] and the floor if you give me a good reason with safety issues taken into account I might be persuaded. 05:00

representative ballor for question of clarification as the i read the bill it says that they D.O.T may raise the speed limits to 75 on roads that it believes could safely support that speed is that correct so this doesn't compel, (speaker changes) that's correct (speaker changes) thank you representative dollar (speaker changes) well i suppose i joined representative carrie in just the concern i mean we got a problems with teenage drivers accidents fatal accidents in this state and this committee has got a lot of work over the years try to get at that not nearly as successfully as we would like to be everybody knows that the reality is not driven in every part of this state there's probably not a road in this state that i haven't been on at some point and time in my life and everybody knows that it is on a 70 you go 80 and you pretty well can set your cruise control 78 your not going to get a ticket i mean somebody who would be having a bad day would have to give you a ticket everybody knows thats the unwritten rule right that your bumping this up another 5 miles i mean your bumping it up to everybody saying okay if its 75 we can go right at 84 85 and can be pretty well comfortable and some point and time were getting to were getting autobans right i just think that were going down a dangerous road (speaker changes) representative Martin (speaker changes) thank you mr chair i wonder if we could if there is anyone perhaps from dot who could speak just on a preliminary opinion on their roads engineered in the state to take this kind of speed not asking for specifics jason soper dot is recognized (speaker changes) representative martin according to lace here say at the engineer he says that there are roads that are engineered that can handle that speed (speaker changes) a follow up question mr chair (speaker changes) follow up (speaker changes) or perhaps a comment my gut instinct tells me that the way cars are engineered today are the cars themselves are much more capable at traveling at higher rates of speed then they were even just 5 years ago much less 10 15 years ago and im glad to hear from dot that some of our roads are also engineered to take that the one weak link in that remained i am concerned about is the driver i don't think that our driver skill level is im not convinced is where it needs to be so if we do move forward with this i hope that down the road perhaps down the short session we might come back and address some of our driver education not just at the teenager level but also at the adult level if your gonna go have increased speeds on a road if you get close to autobon speed one reason it works in germany it does work is that drivers stick to the right lane using only the left lane to pass they don't they don't pass on the right lane right side which is something that you see in the stretch retch of the carni talked about going to rally to lemington its straight i think you can go 80 85 safely in today's modern cars but when you got people weaving in and out of traffic its not so safe so we've got the roads and we've got the cars but lets take a serious look at those of us who are behind the wheel (speaker changes) representative Rayne Brown (speaker changes) thank you mr chair with all due respect i really try when i vote to do no harm and i truly believe that at least person will die because of this bill that ordinarily not have died i cannot see the reason for this i don't think that cars are particularly able to go these kinds of speeds i just don't think we are capable of handling speeds handling cars at such speeds and there is no way i can support this bill thank you mr chair (speaker changes) alright members of the committee we still got 8 people signed up to talk im going to displace this bill so we can get to the rest of the agenda today and we will reschedule it for next week (speaker changes) mr chairman id be glad to make a motion for you if you'd like (speaker changes) representative Moore is recognized for a motion (speaker changes) if you want me to make a motion to devote on the bill id (speaker changes) well senator reagen is not here none of the sponsors are here so i don't want to (speaker changes) mr chairman mr chairman (speaker changes) whose calling (speaker changes) im here (speaker changes) im sorry i didn't realize you were on this bill i thought was you

We're here for, Senator Hunt, I apologize. Would you like to speak on your bill? Sorry I thought it was Senator Raben's bill. Senator Hunt's recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was ready to talk and and Representative Isler jumped up and I just sat down and let him handle it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Welcome to the House, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, basically, I think the chairman made the proper comment that this is a DOT decision. It simply authorizes them to allow speeds of 75 mph on appropriate roads. I mean, it's just an authorization to put it where they want to. And I appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman if you want to motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think at this point, I don't know that any minds are going to be changed. Let's see them voted up or down. Is there an objection to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Moore is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman I move for a favorable report to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion from Representative Tim Moore, for a favorable report to Senate Bill 709. So many as favor the motion say aye. Opposed no. In the opinion of the chair, the ayes have it, the ayes do have it. The bill gets a favorable report. ?? Senate Bill 712, ID card for home bound person, Senator Hunt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr, Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just an inquiry based on that last bill. Does that mean that Representative Moore's gonna have to it down? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll remind the gentleman from ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is not recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is out of order. But I will say I would suspect he is not the only Representative that's gonna need to slow down. Senator Hunt is recognized for Senate bill 712. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This bill directs DMV to provide a vehicle or a way for homebound people to have a photo ID. And it simply requires them to come back and give us a report of anyone who wants a photo ID and they're a homebound person they have a vehicle to get one. Bounce this off DOT and they're fine with it. And I appreciate your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. Can you just give us a little detail on how they're gonna acquire that ID? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I spoke with DOT and they indicated they have vans that could go around. If somebody requests a photo ID, they can go to their home, if they're home bound, they can provide it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we have a physical note on this? I mean, how expensive is that going to be? And the cost that will be added to DOT's budget? Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I spoke with general Tater. and he indicated they had vans available. We didn't talk about a fiscal note but I got the impression that it was, there would be not cost, just use existing personnel. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Representative Martin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I am asking this question at the request of Representative ?? who had to go to another meeting. But as I understand the question she got from a constituent of hers is would it be possible for a person to combine the document we're talking about here with the handicap parking placard that many of these folks also would need to get in order to park their cars. That perhaps might result in some reduction in duplication of paperwork reduction in cost and so forth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you have an answer, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] These are homebound people? They're not going to be driving any place? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? Representative Goodman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I think I said in the bill, but does a person require a physician's letter to prove that they're home bound to be able to do this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes it does require physician's letter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. Representative Rodney Moore. Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Chairman. I'm having a bit of a problem here. First of all home bound person in my mind cannot get out of their home. And so they would not have any need within their home for an ID card, I wouldn't think. And if they can't get out of their home, what is the.

Need for an ID card. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hunt Great question. A logical question. The senator requires DNV to come with their plan that if a home out person want such a thing they can have one there might be circumstances they may need one for example we may pass a law that if you do an absentee ballet you gotta have some kind of identification or if you gonna go to the hospital you might have a photo ID to take advantage of your insurance policy and no particular advance I can think of specifically that would happen but these are possibility. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. Representative recognize for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I move for report for the Senate bills 712. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right representative dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well just very quickly because representative Martin mention this a moment ago and it wasn't as off basis that may have seen but you go to a position to get your cell or phone your handicapped plank and it would seem that for the sake of efficiency and the cost of individual that somehow DNV could work with that programmers their program and be able to do the estuation at the time for them to also give whatever identification card. It mean they should be away to merge those two steps so that you don't have to go to the doctor twice or the doctor ask to fill out two forms that are basically going to DNV for really essentially the same thing just to enhancement or what's currently there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative dollar I was consulting with staff on this and I think that the propose behind the bill is the statics require on DOT's ability to go to someone's home to provide their photo ID. And the purpose of the bill is to allow them to do that which they can't do now rather than having decide the person that needs the ID has to come to the DOT office. So I think. I think references can do their handicapped records at the same time the question is being able to make a photo ID outside of a DOT's office. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Quick question for staff then. They would not need to be more than one form or more than one vision to opposition and order for the individual to pass the medical c qualification. Is that what you’re saying? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No there would not have to be two visits. They could be command. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well let's make sure they are in practice. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. Senator Hunt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative dollar that's a and Representative Martin I thought you make good points and this bill is simply a study bill that that's a wrong term. It instructs the DNV to come up with a plan that could easily be corporate plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay we are just about out of time. Representative Howard recognize for the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Made the motion offer a report on Senate bill 712. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Same as favor the motion say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion carries we are adjoined