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 11, 2013 | Committee Room | Appropriations

Full MP3 Audio File

Will come to order. Members will take their seats. All other guests will remove to the back of the room. Take any conversations outside. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, do you know who took the peppermints from the podium? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the peppermints were Representative Stevens'. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. If members will take their seats, we'll move in to our next amendment, which you already have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, I did not remove my gavel from the podium so I'll be curious as to where it went. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amendment ALU-17V3, amendment 30. Sponsored by Representative Horne. Representative Horne, you are recognized to present your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, I don't know how familiar folks in this room are about with the child advocacy centers. But the child advocacy centers in this state just this past year served nearly six thousand eight hundred new cases. When I talk about child advocacy centers, we're talking about services to kids. And of those six thousand, nearly 800 cases, 75% of these were to kids 12 and under. And 75% of those were sexual abuse. Now you maybe familiar with what happens when a child is sexually abused. They're interviewed by everybody. At the worst possible time in their life. North Carlina is honored and I think proud to have 26 of these centers across our state. They perform an invaluable service to our state, to these kids, and to us by allowing those kids to only have to go through relive these incidences once. I've been in close contact with them. All I want to know is what do ya have to have. Not what would you like to have, what do ya have to have to operate? And I'm like several others in this room, are out raising money for them well outside the government. What they need to operate is $400 thousand dollars. We have in the budget, I think it's $3455. In fact if you look on in the special provisions, I believe it's a page G1 Item 2. But in special provisions it's page 152, I think. I may be wrong about that. My amendment, simply moves, 54 thousand 450 dollars to the child advocacy centers from the, I'm trying to see where I pulled this from, where is it. I pulled it from G1 Item 2. And it goes to G5 for a child advocacy center. I request your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I just wanted to know if we have designated physicians cause G1 includes very specific positions that are being reduced. So does this amendment tell us what additional positions being removed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is that a question to the amendment sponsor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Or staff, either one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright. If staff would approach the mic, identify yourself and respond to the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's item 2 on G1. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Susan Jacobs, physical research. Mr. Chairman, Representative Horne, members of committee, I think the amendment is increasing the reduction on page G1, Item 2, which is a historical...

and the elimination of vacant positions so that would be the item that would be being increased rather than item number one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Earle. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I would certainly like to speak in favor of the amendment. I think you know over the years we have always funded this. This is a great need and the way it happens is that these children don't have to be interviewed by three or four different agencies and they’re under a lot of stress already and all I think we certainly need to find as much money as possible to fund these programs across state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further comments, questions? If not all, those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The next amendment is ALG– 22, v5. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman? May I ask a favor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady wishes to be recognized. What’s your inquiry please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you object to saying the sponsor’s name before you give the number so that when we have more than one by the same sponsor it’s easier to find? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We can do that will if that will be helpful to the member. This amendment is offered by Representative Cleveland, and it is ALG– 22, v5 amendment number 33 and Representative Cleveland is recognized to present his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Chairman. Most of this is technical; I'll just run through it and pick out what’s going on line five. the management flexibility reserve there was a five hundred thousand dollar reduction given to the administrative part of the arts program, the administrative part of the art grants program because the resources came and asked for some change there to give them the flexibility for half of that which we have done within the flexibility to take the reductions administrative savings department wide. Line ten that is nothing more than a technical correction moving that position instead of the first, Line thirteen, this is a reduction. Items six is a two hundred fifty thousand dollars that we would put up at line five for reduction. Line seventeen that is strictly a technical item to balance state funding. Line twenty we’re combining two special provisions on page 251 on the special provisions, items 19.3 and 19.4 and we are making it one special provision and that goes on down to line 31. On the backside of the amendment. The line one is removing things that we moved up and combining the two special provisions. Line three removes special provision 20.4 and we’re going to replace that with the item on line six, PD study of licensure fees and the Department of Insurance and online thirty one Secretary of State asked that the date be changed from one, October of thirteen one August of thirteen so and the provision they had, they would have time to prepare for it and appropriately address it and with that Mister Chairman I’ll take any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland are you rewriting your budget? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s not exactly ?? Questions, comments on the amendment? Seeing none all those in favorite of the amendment pleas signify by saying aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it in and the amendment is agreed to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm just trying to keep as many people happy as I can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m always

All for that. Alright. The next amendment is offered by representative Daughtry, amendment AST/102V4. This is amendment 28 and representative Daughtry is recognized to present his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. This amendment is supported by County commission association and it has to do with the lottery formula that was setup when the lottery was passed. A lot of people voted for the lottery believing it was the education lottery and the funds were to be divided. 50 percent going to the classroom of special needs children, 40 percent to school construction and 10 percent to scholarships. Unfortunately, that didn't happen and a number of counties particularly mine counted on that bill and when they got assorted build schools to get the money from the lottery to help pay on the school bond. Because, they didn't get the money they were promised, my county has to go into reserves and cut spendings and they have been very agitated with this body since the time we did not renege on our promise that was on the bill. The budget takes out that provision that says 50-40-10 I just talked about and what my bill does is keep that provision in and it says, as it has for the last three years that not we are standing on what we agreed to do. When the lottery was passed, the general assembly still may take out funds and do what we originally planned. So it's not great but it's keeping the language in statues so may be down the road we can support our counties. I appreciate your support on adopting that amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. A question for the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there anything on page 13 of special provisions Section 5.5G, is there anything that changes the distribution below that line particularly in the prekindergarten program A7A935, So forth does it change all there or? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, it doesn't change any of that because that's being done not withstanding these provisions. I wish it would change it but it doesn't, what it does it says "Not withstanding the fine we agreed on 50-40-10, we are gonna do this instead". [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The way of explanation, the language Representative Dr. is addressing, there was a distribution in the lottery. The general assembly for the past several years have not been withstanding that language and then appropriating accordingly.Okay? In senate budget, the senate proposed simply removing the language that we have not been withstanding for all these years and frankly we'll probably be not withstanding for some time to come. What representative Daughtry does is instead of taking the senate position and removing that language moving forward, he wants to keep the status qua, let me rephrase, he wants to keep the practice we have done last several years that to not withstand the language as opposed to moving the language. Representative Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaking in support of the amendment. I'd request that this committee support this amendment. We understand we have been through several difficult years and this is not a optimal distribution based on what we have done in the past but in the end of the day when the lottery was passed, it was intended to go on a 50-40-10 distribution and I think that ought to be something in the future that we work to try to regain. So I'd support this amendment and per say keeping this language in ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Conrad. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I also support Representative Daughtry's amendment. My county

Also, with counting on the 40% allocations from the lottery funds are last bond referendum was the principal was $250 Million and we set a tax rate that counted on the general assembly living up to the original allocation promise. I do support the language, unfortunately, the $100 Million in the budget only represents about 22%, but we hope that that would change in the future. Because, lower class sizes have really put a burden down on the local government to build more bricks and mortar classrooms for those children. [SPEAKER CHANGE] To be clear, and I think the representative referenced this, this amendment will not change the distribution for the upcoming year. Representative Horn. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well, that's really my question. I know that its been stated and restated that it won't change . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] If it did, we would rule it out of order. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Okay. But, you added the caveat for the upcoming year and therefore does this commit this general assembly to a distribution formula in subsequent years? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I think generally speaking, the decision that would have to be made the general assembly moving forward, if the language remains, is whether or not to withstand the language in the future. That would be a decision that you would have to make, essentially, on an annual basis whether or not you're going to, not withstand, the language. Which is the reason why the Senate took it out in the first place. I hope that answers the question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I thought. Representative Arp. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak in favor for the amendment. I understand the financial reality is what we have to do with the budget. But, my county and Union County was one of the fastest growing in the state for many, many years. We had a 9% to 10% population growth. We built buildings, schools with 30 year commitments and bonds. It was based upon the promise distribution of the lottery. Many folks were skeptical of the lottery proceeds going and being retained. Unfortunately, that's where we are and I'm in support of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further . . . Representative Bumgarner. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to speak in favor of this amendment also. I think that people should do what they say they're going to do. If we said we were going to use the lottery money in this formula, that's what should happen. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further comment? All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment passes. Next amendment, offered by Representative Faircloth. ALG-24 Version 1, amendment 36. Representative Faircloth is recognized to present his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Sir. This amendment speaks to a project that is going on, on the borderline between Guilford and Forsyth County in our great state. It is a project that comes together, bringing many people to the project and a great, great number of them are veterans, veterans families, survivors, etc. This request is for a world class, 8 acre field of honor, that has already been planned, and funds have already been gathered in great amount. To give you a feel for this, it will be titled The Carolina Field of Honor, it's a $5 Million undertaking to construct a large veteran memorial on approximately 8 acres in a park called Zyad Park, that already is existing. There is a World Memorial Foundation, which is a 501-C3 non-profit. That non-profit exists for one purpose and that's to gather the funds necessary to build this memorial. It will then step out of the picture, the memorial will then be operated by Guilford and Forsyth Counties by a pre-existing agreement. To show you the support locally there is a $250 Thousand joint

Pledge by Greensborough Winston Salem and Highpoint, there's a pledge by Curnersville $10000, there are, they raised about $3 million dollars already, they expect to have the rest of that by the end of this year. They have requested participation by the state, in the amount of 350 thousand dollars which is a very, based upon the other money that's been raised, a very small amount. But it is a crucial part of getting this attraction built by next year. I've requested that 350 thousand dollars be appropriated as the state's contribution to this project. It would come out of, and I'll give you the reference to that, the housing trust fund. Would leave $6 million 650 thousand dollars in the housing trust funds. So it's a small hit on that. Be glad to answer any questions. But this will be a world class attraction it will bring visitors and it also an educational piece for children. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Sho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I'm having a bit of a problem. This $350 thousand dollars is coming out of the Housing trust fund. And would it appears as though we're about to do is about to open up that trust fund for some other folks to be start picking and choosing at that. And I don't think we ought to be doing that to our housing trust fund. That housing trust fund has been very very good to the citizens of this state and out to remain in tact. I hope you would not approve this, take away from that trust fund. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glaizer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. And I'm really in support of Representative Faircloth, what he's trying to do, but the fund is the real problem. If we look at the budget, we've already are cutting trust fund by a million dollars this year. And at a time when that money is leveraging enormous private money in additional funds and federal funds to create housing opportunities, including housing opportunities for a lot of homeless veterans in my area. I think the project is worthwhile and I would assume that the majority can find the 350 thousand dollars somewhere but to take it from the housing trust fund, which leverages that money in so many of our communities for a what amounts to a memorial, doesn't strike me as a good exchange. And not because I disfavor the project but because of where it's coming from. I would be voting no and would recommend that we try to find some other place for the money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avil, do you wish to be recognized or passed at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, maam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just have a question that maybe the staff, but in the DOJ settlement, there was money from all different kinds of places that was going help us create a housing slots for the people. Would this be part of that money, or is this any part of that at all? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ?? staff respond to that. I don't believe so. Miss Denise Thomas and staff, if you would respond to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila that is not part of that money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, this housing trust fund is not part of the DOJ settlement but a great portion of this money, some portion of this money goes to support housing for disabled people. For people with mental illness, developmental disabilities and other disabled people. And it is peaked this trust fund at 10 million dollars in it. So it's been a fund that we have reduced year after year. So I would hope that we would find the money for this memorial, which is a very good project and I support but we would find it some place else. And I would vote against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hearing the concern, would it be permissible to displace this and see if can find the money elsewhere? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment, at the request of sponsor has been displaced. Next amendment is offered by Representative Saine. AML-11 version 1, amendment 42. Representative Saine, you are recognized to present your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is simply a, after talking with the State of...

This is an oversize board looking at IT, it basically make sure the ?? are not betting member, so it would not conflict with some of the work that she is doing in terms of auditing some of processes in IT, IT ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For the questions on the amendments, say ?? in favour say aye, ?? no, amendment passes. Next amendment is offered by representative Insko, AMG-23 Version 2 AMG-23 Version 2, amendment number 45 and representative Insko is ?? ask to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, this amendment actually returns money to our local health department to fulfil an implement the charges that we give them that they legally require to do, I see the health department is one of the few healthcare providers that we have in the system that actually tries to keep people healthy, their major goals are to improve the population health and individual health, I think we heard a lot from our local health department about how they are reducing their funds probably through ?? and probably through cuts that we made and diversions that we have made from local health department we are eliminating the tobacco cessation programs this year that this is ?? will eliminate services for pregnant women's health, as so this deletes a new appropriation to Carolina pregnancy care fellowships, these are crisis intervention systems that cancel pregnant women to fulfil their pregnancy and I think I don't have a problem what that during that at all but these crisis ?? provides some ultrasounds, and some other testing that is health care related, but they are not medical facilities, 92% of them have no medical staff on board at all, they tend not to identify themselves as agencies they amply that they are medical facilities. They also incorrectly state the 26% of them have been founded incorrectly state that abortions leads breast cancer, so I support having our tax dollars go to agencies that have a standard a medical standard that we can depend on and ?? wanna fund these agencies I would like first to make sure that that that that we have that their license people in some ways we have a standard to measure them by and so I hope that you will appreciate your support for this amendment to return this money to our local health department to implement the programs they already have in place. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman members committee I would of course oppose the amendment this money of course is in the senate budget, its for crisis pregnancy centres and I really frankly don't know why the abortion clinics are so afraid to have pregnancy support centres surrounding them, their are about 80 in the state, their staffed mostly by volunteers or people working on very low wages, they give good information on the ??, we past two years ago the women's right to no-act and frankly you may not know this some of the clinics are sending women to the support centres to have 24 hour information because they know its good, they were ?? with them, its a small amount of money, its a just a what they need to barely survive these are the people who are putting their own lives and treasure and resources on the line to help women in trouble. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Evelyn [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman I too would like to ask that you not support this amendment, I think the Representative Stam spoken eloquently as to the reasons why, I believe everybody has idea of what government should do for its citizens should be honoured and this is one of our way of doing this [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] question for the amendment sponsor [SPEAKER CHANGES] aye ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] lady ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] please let us know how ?? age of the recipient and also whether or not titled to ?? medicate funding sources come in to play here [SPEAKER CHANGES] you know I actually am have not researched those issues.

at all. My concern is that we continue to take money away from programs that already counsel women who are pregnant. We should be, actually, if we really want to help pregnant women we should be expanding our healthcare access to that through insurance, through expanding our Medicaid. I favor giving services to women to continue their pregnancy. I think that's important, but I don't think that we should be doing it by robbing programs that are already in existence and already very successful that are a part of our public sector essential services, So that's my concern with this amendment. I'm not familiar with some of the things that are already been stated. I support our local Health Departments and we have taken too much money away from them for the programs that they have already now. We're hearing from our local Health Departments that they need this money. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Arp. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak on a couple of issues. In our county we actually have a very good crisis pregnancy center that works in conjunction with the Health Department. In many times they have referrals that come to that health department, or from the Health Department to the CPC. The second thing was asserted in support of this that somehow there's unlicensed practice of medical activities going on. That is just simply not the case. In every CPC that undertakes anything regarding medical practice there is a doctor, who is maybe a volunteer or something, but has medical charge over the nurses. And I just strongly oppose the assertion that that's not and ask you to vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Mr... [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Farmer-Butterfield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I'd like to ask you a question, Mr. Chair, and it's probably relevant to staff and maybe Representative Stam. How many crisis support centers are there in the state like this? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Staff wish to respond, if they have the answer? Does Representative Stam have a response to the lady's question? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Approximately 80. Although, sort of depends on how you count, but approximately 80. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Why are we trying to give funding to just this one? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Oh, this is an umbrella group that will distribute the money to the other 80. This is not going to one group. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Is this similar to what Planned Parenthood was doing, and what's the difference? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Stam, you want to respond to that? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I can't think of any similarities to what Planned Parenthood is doing. These is people giving care, you know, helping people get baby bassinets, and clothes, and food, and medical care for people who want to continue a pregnancy. Hand of Hope Ministry in Fuquay-Varina, Care Net, Gateway, Durham Pregnancy Support Services, Chapel Hill Pregnant... Every major city has this, but even, I was at a fundraiser dinner in Hertford County, or where ever Ahoskie is, a year ago and the place was filled with people contributing their money to take care of women in crisis pregnancies. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up. Statement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Follow up or just statement? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Statement. I'm not going to ask any more questions of Representative Stam or anyone else on this. I do want to say that we eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood and we're now talking about giving funding to support centers to distribute to other crisis centers for pregnancies, and I think that this amendment is important and we need to put that money within the Health Department as the amendment recommends. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Just for clarity, I think this budget is silent with regard to Planned Parenthood. Representative Mobley. Representative Insko, did you have another...? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Yes. I'd like to speak a second time please. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I didn't mean to imply that, well let me just say, so it's clear that we have some crisis pregnancy centers that do a very good job and they work with our health departments. That actually makes my point that they don't all do that. If we had a procedure in place where we had standards and licensing for these agencies then they would all measure up to be like the good ones are right now. My concern is they don't all measure up and we don't have any way of knowing that our tax dollars will be distributed to the one

[Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]...are doing a good job and the ones that are actually...that are not, for example, presenting medical information correctly...some of them are not presenting that correctly so I think that makes my point. And I would hope that we would...if you want to fund these crisis pregnancy centers, that we would make sure that there are agencies that have a standard of ...that have a standard of quality of excellence and delivery of services so please vote for my amendment. [Speaker changes.] Representative Fulghum? [Speaker changes.] Of all the agencies involved in crisis pregnancy management, Representative Stam, Representative?????? mentioned, these are public, not government, versions of how to take care of these kinds of problems. This money has to be highly leveraged. I have no idea what the total amount of money is being spent on these programs around the state but there's very little doubt, this is seed money and this is a very, very small percentage of their total budget and I can't imagine a great leverage that we can do than to help these people do what they do so well and keep it private. [Speaker changes.] Representative Whitmire? [Speaker changes.] Speak on the amendment a second time. [Speaker changes.] You're recognized. [Speaker changes.] Earlier, my questions were exactly concerned with where the money might go...and, with the Carolina Pregnancy Fellowship, I'll simply share this. Nonprofit pro-life organization committed to equip, encourage and network pregnancy care ministries of North Carolina...and, with that, I ask that you oppose the amendment. [Speaker changes.] Further discussion...all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying "aye". (Ayes.) All those opposed, no. (No's.) The no's have it and the amendment fails. [Speaker changes.] The next amendment offered by Representative Lucas is Amendment AMK-25V1. AMK-24V1. Amendment 40 offered by Representative Lucas and Representative Lucas, you are recognized to present your amendment. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chair. This amendment attempts to place some money back into the Text Book Fund. Most of you are probably aware that we have really been bleeding the Text Book and Supply fund for the last four-five years and it's now reached a point where we have now provided about one...less that one-fourth of adequate money for text books. We know that we are rapidly moving to digital learning but we're not there yet. We are making great strides and we're trying to get there but we haven't arrived. We still have many children who lack the connectivity and broad-band necessary to really work into the digital divide. Many of our poor students, even if they had connectivity and broad-band, would not have personal computers to really take advantage...and won't have that personal textbook. If they don't have that security blanket, a textbook, to take home, I'm afraid that their education's gonna suffer. Now we recognize that this is a tight budget, very tight...and we have really, really searched the budget, tryin' to find a place to secure our textbook funding. It's dropped now from what is considered to be one-hundred-and-nine million dollars to be adequate...even with this amendment...would still only be about twenty-eight point two million, still only about a fourth of what we would need to adequately supply textbooks. Our children's education is gonna' suffer. I regret where we're havin' to take the fund from and that is the teacher insurance fund but, we hope that we won't need it. Appreciate your support. [Speaker changes.] Representative Blackwell. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman. The co-chairs of the Ad Appropriations Committee would urge the committee not to approve this amendment. We added this liability insurance protection at no cost.... [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.] [Speaker changes.]

…to school employees in previous budget. In an era in which raises for our teachers are sometimes hard to come by, this is a benefit for everybody employed in the school system, that we think is worthwhile and ought to be maintained. Now we understand that textbooks need to be funded and we’re pleased that the lottery is setting aside some money. As I mentioned earlier this morning as we were presenting the education budget that we are going to have some more money from that source to transition into more digital and online resources as we move away from hard copies. But the other two things that this amendment would undo that I think are mistakes. The program that has been demonstrated by studies done through UNC, to be most effective in terms of the teacher’s having the most positive impact on student performance, is Teach for America. And on line 17 of this amendment, if you will see the reference to deleting item 26, that is reducing or eliminating the additional half million dollars that would go to Teach for America, to expand that most successful program. Even though we’re in an era of strict budgeting, we need to try to take some initiatives as well as simply holding the line. And we would urge you not to cancel out that small increase in the most effective teacher source, in order to put some money back into textbooks. Finally if you’ll look at line 19 through 22, this amendment also removes money that was put there to benefit the counties in this state that are rural and have lowest performing students. It would be a pilot program that only involves slightly over a half million dollars, to help provide additional options for students in those counties. And the concept is that in those counties, this money would help provide the personnel to guide and help to develop other school options in the form of charter schools, where they don’t exist. Charter schools typically are in a lot of our urban areas and more metropolitan counties. You have more highly educated people there. You have more businesses there that can provide people who can help to explain and set these things up. This would be a program that is designed to help provide that kind of assistance in areas of the state that are in fact the most needy because of the lower performance of their students. And I would urge the committee not to adopt this amendment, and to get rid of the good things in the form of liability insurance, an increase in Teach for America, and the rural charter accelerator program, to put a few dollars back in the textbook fund. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Blackwell would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Blackwell. I too share your zest to work with those students who have the least. And I think we both have that in common. But can you share with me how a student who has no access to the digital divide, and then we cut the textbook fund to the limit that he won’t have a textbook to take home, how this student is expected to get an education? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think there are two responses to that, Representative Lucas. This budget allows, I would say maximum flexibility to local school districts to move funds as they feel are most important for their particular school system. With the exception of being able to move money into the central office, or to move money on a way that would violate federal requirements that are associated with the receipt of federal funds. Thus, if a school…

...system has a continuing pronounced problem that it can't offer digital instruction and devices and so forth. It has the option of transferring other dollars within its budget to fund textbooks if that is what is most important to them. However, as I said earlier, some of the lottery funds we're glad are being dedicated to this digital process and a significant concern with that, as well I think, as with some legislation that Representative Horn has helped to pilot through the House this year, is designed to continue working on matters of connectivity and access throughout the State. So through a combination of the flexibility and the budget, and the additional resources coming from lottery and the initiatives that we're taking to work on spreading the ability for students to access even at home and not just in their schools, we believe we're moving in the right direction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry I'm not seeing the individual. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted to address the liability insurance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll come right back to you, Representative Hastings. Representative Hastings. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just have to say in my little town of Cherryville, where I live, I have numerous teachers come up to me and tell me that they had never been able to afford liability insurance and when we went through and analyzed this and provided the FT's the liability insurance for about $16 per FTE, when they were having to send approximately $400 off to the NCAE and the NEA, I just think it would be a bad mistake to remove what we tried to do to better things for our teachers and school personnel. This liability insurance for our teachers and school personnel was in fact a pay raise for many of those teachers and other personnel. I would not remove the liability insurance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? All those in favor of the amendment say aye, opposed no. The no's have it and the amendment fails. We're going back to the amendment offered by Representative Glazier. This is now Amendment 25A. And it's ALE-34 V1, ALE-34 V1. And Representative Glazier is recognized for another shot. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And this is the nurses master pay. And I work with Representative Horn and the co-chairs. And where this takes it from in the second year, if you'll notice in the book, we've been able to reduce the discretionary cut, I think by about seven point some million, with a clear understanding that since it's in the second year, we'll be able to find that $200,000 in a different way in the following year. And I do not know of any opposition to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier has stated it well. We support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. The next amendment is offered by Representative Whitmire. It is AMK-19 V3, Amendment No. 14, and Representative Whitmire is recognized to present his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. Very briefly, what this amendment does, it takes that vouchers opportunity scholarships and puts the money for that back in ADM so it best effects the classroom of 87% of our students in the State. You've all heard my thoughts in terms of the efficacy of how the funding actually works, having gone through it and having to make drastic cuts to the school board chairman for year after year, after year in some very high performing systems. I want you to think of these two thoughts as you consider how you vote and I ask that you support this amendment. When the middle class goes to the poles and they realize we heard all about the voucher bill, but I didn't qualify. And I know that it grows, grows exponentially over time, but then when they get to that point over time, they realize that the capacity, especially in the rural areas of private schools which serve less than 4% of the...

…?? in the state have extremely limited capacity than those of the $4,200 a year would actually work for and for those that do have capacity in my area, in West North Carolina general, they range from $14,000 - $25,000 a year. The final thought’s this, I support these schools absolutely wholeheartedly and I have talked to many of them in my area recently. Do we think that Christian schools want government bureaucrats setting the standards and making demands on them? Absolutely not. What we have here is the potential for an absolute Trojan horse that brings government into a private setting and ultimately undermines and compromises what those schools stand for in the first place. I ask you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I certainly appreciate Representative Whitmire’s enthusiasm and strong support for public schools. Can’t say that we look particularly as kindly toward rewriting the entire K-12 education budget as this amendment does, where it addresses supplies and cuts and addresses flex cuts, addresses DPI cuts. We would encourage the appropriations committee to vote against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bryan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Let me make a few points. Obviously as one of the bill’s sponsors for house bill 9944, which is a bipartisan bill, filed with Representative Brandon, Hanes and Brown. I’m a fan of the bill and let me tell you why I disagree with the amendment and with Representative Whitmire’s comments. I think the opportunity scholarship bill does three very significant things that are what we should be all about. It saves money, it improves public schools and it improves student outcomes. And despite all the rhetoric and concern, we have the State of Florida who’s been running a program , which our program is largely modeled on. That program’s been running for ten years. The sky has not fallen and in fact the exact opposite has happened. Florida has saved millions of dollars. I think they’re set this year to save about $57 million dollars. Their public schools have improved and their student outcomes have improved, in particular we can see in studies that have been done. There have been 23 studies on the impact of public schools of having choice programs. Twenty two of those studies show that public schools actually improved. One study showed no impact. No negative studies. These are the gold standard random assignment type studies. On student outcomes, 12 different studies have been done. One of them showed no impact on student improvement, 11 showed positive student outcomes. That’s on achievement but it’s also on attainment. More kids matriculated in college, more high school diplomas. That’s been the impact of school choice and that’s what the impact will be of this house bill. It is in size, a small program. Effectively you could call it a pilot program in that you only have about a half of one percent of students that will initially be able to use this but those are the students that are most in need and most desire an opportunity, a chance that they have not been given. It’s not a silver bullet to fix all of our educational problems but it is one piece of the educational puzzle that parents and their students need. I ask you to vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I was also a proud sponsor of the bill. I would like for you to also oppose this amendment. I think it’s very important to know that my colleague Representative Bryan let you know about the programs in Florida but folks we have a very similar program in Charlotte, NC. It does basically the same exact thing with much, much, much less money and providing access and opportunity to a number of kids that are in the same demographic in Charlotte. I think if we need to be very careful when we hear the rhetoric that people won’t be able to access…

Speaker: Scholarship we have been doing it the community had been doing it for years and years and years and years and you an see private school after private school this is not necessary like Representative whit more say talking about fourteen fifteen thousand dollar schools if a parent chooses ??? i guess that's OK but we are talking about private schools and other organizations that have been taking care this demographic for number of years and this is just give up one more step and if you guys wanna look at scholarship program ?? you can see that this is a great access for lot of folks and for lot of folks that in community need some type of opportunity some type of choose i urge that you please oppose this amendment and give dignity and respect to parents all across state who needed choice thank you, Speaker Changes: Representative ?? thank you Mr chairman in addition to the remarks that Representative whit more has made also would like to support this amendment fro three reasons one i think this a major shift in education and i think it's a debate we need to have but i do not believe that it need to be in the budget i think it is separate ?? that is need to be debated and discussed however turns out will more forward from there so i think for that reason because of the policy it does not need to be in the budget and ?? i believe our local school districts will have been hit hard already they are already doing more or less they are already doing the best that they can do with the needle with the funds and to take more funds out of public schools is something i opposed to and finally I'll be brief i believe in free markets i believe in competitions but but do not believe vouchers that make fifth grade teachers and new elementary across no elementary work harder than their already working i think they had already given it all they have so for those three reasons i will support this amendment and i would encourage to do the same thank you Mr.Chairman, Speaker Changes:Representative Samuelson, Speaker Changes:thank you Mr.Chairman members about two weeks ago my husband an i gt invited by the fundraiser for a christian school ?? culturally diverse community they have throb the community for raising money from people like me to help them and to support for the scholarship program they have for students however they are excepting the demands to exceeds and ?? because they need things like this opportunity scholarship when we showed they said oh ?? excited we already know soon kids struggling in school already right now need this kind of environment and only with like this opportunity scholarship can provide them a place in our school so i do ask that you oppose the amendment to just do ?? current division rate is under $5400 so with this scholarship they can easily raise the money ?? they can afford to have this children count ?? it's not a $54 school it's a $5400 school that meets the needs of kids often don't have the kinds of options as they rest of the have the urge to oppose the amendment , Speaker Changes:Representative Adam , Speaker Changes: thank you Mr.Speaker i want to speak and support the amendment i here lot about opportunities ?? like the Representative over there who just spoken they have the dollars to provide for the students i think that they have to i don't think they need to continue to rate our public schools if you want to make to the private school that the choice you make apparent and i will still continue to stay that these parents we are talking about the lowest end of the scales will not have the funds to make this opportunity a real opportunity for children so the children that bill proposes to will not be supported i was opposed to that bill and I'm supporting this amendment because it would correct the action taken before and i hope that you would support the amendment , Speaker Changes: Representative whit more Speaker Changes: thank you me chair to speak a second time on the amendment, Speaker Changes: the gentlemen is recognized, Speaker Changes: folks i have great respect for the sponsors of this bill and that is been stated to them personally many times their intend were always genuine,

... means of doing it. I just have to emphasize that I have great concern because, being in an area where parents invest time in their schools, in making them better. This in effect serves more as an escape than it does as a help. And, this has not had a full house vote. It's in the budget, as with a couple other things that... it hadn't been fully vetted. So that's why with that I will rest my case and ask Mr. Chair for a showing of the ayes and the nos and we conclude the debate, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ayes and nos have been requested. Representative ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Everybody knows that I've spent my life in public education. And, I think this is a step in the wrong direction. For two reasons, we've just taken out of the budget all the policy items that the Senate put in. And, here we are putting in the same kind of things. It is inappropriate and we should not be doing that, and I urge you to support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? Thank you Mr. Chairman. It takes a lot for me to speak on this type of issue, but I finally had to step up a little bit. And, I couldn't disagree more about the gentlemen who are saying this shouldn't be in the budget. So to me this is an underhanded way to defang 944 before it even gets off the ground. And, so I really do not agree with the amendment. And, the funding should be in the budget. And, it can always not be used if 944 doesn't pass, but obviously if 944 passes and becomes law then there's no funds at that point. So... and the argument that very few people can take advantage of it... that it's going to destroy public schools... you can't make both of those arguments at the same time. I'm sorry it's not logical at all. So, if very few people use it, then it's not going to have any effect. And if a lot of people use it, it still won't destroy public schools because it's the law of percentages, as someone's already mentioned. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative L Hall Thank you Mr. Chairman. And, I'll speak briefly... won't reiterate the points that have already been made about the drain on public school system resources that would happen or the unfairness of having a major policy shift happen in the budget without full discussion. But, I will assert this. Those families out there who might would qualify for this type of assistance, those who already have their children in school in programs that may have run out of resources or no longer eligible for whatever assistance program they're on... they would be disclosed from or foreclosed from participating in the program. And, so for some reason we're creating now two tiers in addition to taking money from public schools where these families will have to go back to should they lose the other support. So, I'm gonna support the amendment. I hope you will, too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? Thank you Mr. Chairman. We've talked about technicalities in here and we haven't had a chance to discuss this, and if anybody believes that vouchers haven't been discussed for a few years hasn't been awake. The state has a responsibility to educate our children. Our kids had an option. We could have sent them to private schools. We chose the public schools because our schools were such that the kids got a good education. Now there were a few years I had to kinda monitor things a lot. And that wasn't the fault of the school, in whole. But our kids got a good education. That's not the case in a lot of our public schools. We might as well admit that. And I don't feel like that we are doing our children justice by not using our tax dollars to move them into a school where they can get the education that they need. These are the children that we're talking about. We're talking about children who simply can not get what it is they need in our public schools. The schools that we fund in general can't be everything to everybody. And we're gonna have to have the opportunities for those children who need specialized education whether it's small classrooms or certain emphasis or certain types of teaching. And we are not doing our children the justice by crippling them and not being able to put them in an environment and get them educated for becoming productive citizens. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? Thank you Mr. Chairman. Just to speak briefly. What concerns me basically about this is that this is a situation you say that everybody can take advantage of about $4200 even on a $5400...

Some folks can’t afford that. But what’s more disturbing is the areas where you don’t have the opportunity for those kids to become enrolled in a private institution. There are places down east that don’t have these schools in the area. What are you going to do with all those kids who can’t do that? If you were really going to open up this thing, then what you should do is you should at least provide what it costs for us to educate a child in our public school system rather than if you did- ?? what it cost us. You ought to put that kind of money in a scholarship program for them to be able to take advantage of it. I don’t care what you say, I look every day during this season of the year, a lot of the private schools are running pictures of their classes. And I look at a lot of them in the paper, I looked at one this morning out of about 102 graduates, there were maybe 8 dark faces, the same color as me, in that picture. There was one run the other week on a school that was not quite as expensive as the one that ran this morning, there were only 3 faces out of 98 that took advantage. And the final thing on this is that unfortunately these schools, they’re not like charter schools. Charter schools at least get the money for educating those kids. But here these schools cherry pick. I mean, let’s face it folks, if you don’t cut it in those schools, you’re out. It’s just that way. In order to get in the school you’ve got to be able to meet the standards of that school to get in. How do you get in if you’re saying our public schools are failing us, how do you get in to those schools? And if you get in there, how do you stay in ‘em? This $4,200 you’re giving is nothing but a mere pittance, a mere taking-away of $4,200 that could be used in our schools. Why don’t we go ahead and put what we need into our public system to make our schools even better than some of those schools that you want to put these kids in? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Elmore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would just like to speak about the amendment. Since this is appropriations, I would like to talk about the actual financial side of it. A concern of mine that I have is that this policy has been stated as saving money, and I’m concerned with the ADM adjustment if we can actually predict that. In Education subcommittee I was hoping to draw up an amendment that would save money dealing with this, only applying Opportunity Scholarships to Wake and Mecklenberg County. But after it was ran through our formulas it was found that that would cost an additional $8 million of appropriation to be able to cover it. So a concern that I have is our estimates with the ADM adjustment with these Opportunity Scholarships, if they could be accurate, if that’s a true number that we could actually use, are we going to have a short-fall with it that has to be back field. I don’t know if all of that has been panned out yet with this policy change, and that’s a concern of mine. Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insco. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members, every year since I’ve been a member of the General Assembly, with the exception of the last few years, Republicans and Democrats alike joined together to take steps to improve educational opportunities for our children. We started Smart Start and ?? Four. We gave star ratings to our daycare centers. We increased our childcare subsidy. We had drop-out prevention programs. We expanded our teacher training programs. We had superb teacher development programs go on. We saw the achievement gap beginning to close, and our school ratings- the quality of our public school education across the state improved. I don’t know why we are stopping our efforts to improve public education. I don’t know why the advances, the success that we’ve had in these programs that are paying off—our public schools are getting better—I don’t understand why we aren’t continuing on that same track of making our schools better every year. You’re never going to have schools that you think are perfect, you’re always going to have to be trying to improve the schools. We’ve been doing that.

[Speaker changes.]...we've been successful. It is very distressing to see us now taking steps to undermine...intentionally undermine and put at a disadvantage, our public school system that is responsible for serving every child. I believe every one of these scholarships that will be used...all the money that is available will be used but it will go to parents...and I would just add that there are schools that have a...good schools that have lower than $15,000 or $20,000 tuition. The Durham School for Children is a very good school...it's tuition is not...it's below $10,000 a year so those schools do exist. But, by and large, across the state, the tuition is higher and, in those schools that are private schools, they don't have buses to pick up children so working parents have to arrange for their children to get transportation. There are often extra expenses like paying for your athletic uniforms, paying for field trips...it's not all free plus schools already...private schools already give tuition waivers to bright minority students that are academically gifted that they want in their student body...and they already give tuition waivers to athletes that they want and many of these voucher programs will go to those students that already have been admitted. I don't have any problem with people sending their children to private schools. My grandchildren attend private schools and we're happy to pay our taxes to have our children go to public schools so I think it's 'specially...at this time, when we have, we're just beginning to enlarge our STEM programs and concentrate on the jobs of the future through our public school system...that this is not the time to take away resources from that system and I urge you to vote for the amendment. [Speaker changes.] Representative Glazier...and if I can ask the indulgence of the members to speak briefly. We have probably 35 more amendments so unless you wanna be here past midnight, it would be wonderful if you could be "presbyterian" with your comments. (Laughter.) [Speaker changes.] Well, that may be more difficult for me than others, Mister Speaker. (Laughter.) [Speaker changes.] We're good to go here, Mister Chairman. Thank you. [Speaker changes.] Representative Glazier, we will grant you some latitude. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Chairman and I will try to be brief. [Speaker changes.] ??????????? good to go, Mister Chairman. [Speaker changes.] Mister Chairman, it seems to me, right now, we are having a terribly difficult time as a General Assembly, and I know the Chairs are struggling to fund our first system of public education. It seems really inappropriate time to start trying to fund a second system of public education...or a second system of education. I can't improve on a number of the comments, particularly those by Representative Dobson, Representative Elmore and Representative Whitmire but we're not putting in this budget a raise for teachers, who are demoralized this year...after a number of years by both Democrats and Republicans of not funding teacher raises, we're not attacking at all the discretionary cut which has hampered badly, because of the recession, the school system...and there's no question at all but that vouchers will increase the cost past this first year, over the next several years. In addition, I really think that the problem with vouchers as it's expressed is summed up in the percentages. This bill talks about...as I remember...130% free and reduced or poverty level, which is a good thing even if you can believe that those students will be able to make up the difference of the 5000 they need for elementary or the 6000 more for middle or the 7000 more for high school, which is the average of what they need, but Representative Whitmire may have hit the point...what do you say to all those people who earn fifty or sixty thousand dollars, have three kids and want this option that your tax dollars will go not to their kids. Well, I think that the real answer to that came when the original bill was drafted, which had a 300% level and that was the true intent and we all know that was gonna move to four and five hundred percent because that was where this was scheduled to go. Only because of trying to cobble together votes has it been reduced to the real poverty level children and we know, based on the data, that those are not the children who are likely going to seriously be able to access in most places and, even if they get the scholarship, will private schools for that ....

Amount of money adequately and give children a sound education who are ADD and ADHD and rheumatoid arthritis and all of the hard to educate children who cost far more than that. And so we need ourselves coming and going here. We don't have enough in it to make a difference. When we put more in it we are really doing exactly what many of us fear which is trying to fund a whole new system of education. And so wherever you fall on this, as a matter of policy it's complex and wherever you fall on this in the end timing is everything. Governing is about the scarce allocation of resources and in the end this is not the year to be funding a voucher program even if we make this public policy choice. And I would urge us to adopt the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair. I want to speak briefly against the amendment. It's been interesting to sit and watch the debate for the amendment because we're taking entirely too much from public schools and yet we're not doing enough that will send it out away from here. As a parent I was fortunate enough to live in Surrey county where we have three school systems and they're competitive against each other. They may as well somewhat be private schools because the two city schools will compete against each other and the county schools are trying to keep up. So I had the advantage of my children were at a school that was much more intimate in its discussion. Now as my children have grown one wants to be in a population of total university population of 1600, the other one's at a university that's 80 to 100,000 people. There's a difference in children that parents recognize as to whether they need more one on one instruction which these tuition scholarships would give or these vouchers would give, whereas others could function well in whatever school it is.The people who argue that it's only going to cherry pick, well I'm sorry if parents are involved enough to get their children to these schools then those children should have the benefit. This is about the children, not about a system, not about the traditional public schools. This is about what's best for each and every one of those individual children. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, Representative Bryan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. To speak a second time. I just want to make a couple of follow-up comments. First with respect to cost just to be clear our own fiscal note on the state and local combined savings over a five year period shows about $40 million dollars in savings. So when you talk about money and what you're going to do with money if you don't vote against this amendment you will have less money, so let's be clear, you will have less money for your public schools. All the studies that have been done on choice programs show savings, savings. The second point. Okay, I think I'm good now. The second point with respect to access, people have made a lot of comments about whether or not kids will be able to use the scholarship. Florida again started this program ten years ago. They started with about 10,000 students and just FYI they have not changed their income limits, it's in the roughly 185% to 225% of federal poverty guidelines range over that ten year period. Haven't changed their income limits but the number of students utilizing the scholarship which has gone from about a $3500 dollar scholarship to about a $4100 dollar scholarship this year has gone from 10,000 to over 50,000. And they are schools that are serving those students needs. And remember again just when you think about the savings there are all these schools out there. The brick and mortar is not paid for by us. The transportation and all these other things are not paid for by us but these students are able to utilize it. Let me encourage you to vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Riddell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Folks I've been listening to the debate on this for quite some time now and I have not spoken to the committee about it but it's time for me to be heard on this. I am very thankful that we have something like the opportunity scholarship coming forward and I oppose the amendment brought by my good friend and seat mate representative Whitmire. It was said in a previous committee meeting that this is robbing Peter to pay for Paul. Unfortunately there are some pockets of education, public education in our state where...

Peter has been robbing Paul and Paul’s child of a sufficient education and we have many programs that we have put in place to help disadvantaged children, to help them get a good public education. We have the Disadvantaged Student Supplemental Fund, there’s the Low Wealth Supplement, there’s the Small County Supplement, there’s the At-Risk Student Services, there’s the Improving Student Accountability and many many more that we have either put in place in the past or that are currently in place. But there are some schools where these programs are not doing the job. We cannot take children who are in a high poverty situation, where there’s high teacher turnover or low student performance and leave them there without any hope. The Opportunity Scholarship, friends, it provides them an opportunity to succeed and get them out of a school where they have no hope. And rather than consigning them to a future of failure or mediocrity or getting involved in gangs and end up in crime and in jail, you give them the hope for an education. You give them the hope of a future that will help them amount to something and be a benefit to the community and a blessing to their parents. This is a good, good step that we’re making here with public education, the Opportunity Scholarship. I would encourage you, please vote down the amendment. This is simply keeping children from getting access to the education that they deserve. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I have a question for Representative Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I really wanted to vote for this amendment, but I do want to point out on line 17, it says reduces the state support for the department of public instruction operations, including salaries and benefits by 2.5%, and I just wanted you to explain that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In looking at the physical note in the math, which I take great issue with because it doesn’t account for fixed cost and a whole lot of things that turn into rather creative math. But I’ll give absolute credit where credit is due to the bill’s sponsors. We had to come up with the difference. You take away so much and you think if you just put it back in it would be the same, but that’s where they say it saves money, and it does not. I can attest to that. So we had to look for places and with that , the DPI cut which, you know, everything is doing more and more and more with less. That additional cut to DPI would put the House budget the same as the Senate budget when it comes to DPI, and when it comes to instructional supplies, look at many things, and yes there are many things that are hurting for funds. But that was the least of those that I, and others, many others in this room came to the consensus to pick the instructional supplies. Now there is a couple provisions that Friday we were able to put a little bit back into instructional supplies, we mitigated a little bit. If you go into the next year, you will find that that takeaway actually gets replenished almost double. So in the two year, it actually comes up better but we had to do that in order to make the numbers work. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Of course I oppose the amendment. Math includes addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division and I know a little bit of algebra, but for this, you really don’t need that. If you take- and I’ve shared this information with many of the people who have spoken for this amendment. They forget when you divide you have a numerator and a denominator. If you take money away from the numerator but don’t take it away from the denominator, you can pretend you’re losing money. But if you change the denominator, you find out that after the Opportunity Scholarships pass, the traditional public schools next year will have an additional $1.30 per pupil. In the second year they’ll have an additional $7 and some cents per pupil. And the LEA’s will save about $7 or $8 per pupil beginning in year two. So, if your decision is based on support for the public schools, if that’s your reason, the fiscal impact, you will vote no on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the committee is the passage of the amenment division. Roll call having been requested, the clerk will call the roll. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Adams. Harp. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes.

Adams yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Harp [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Havlough [SPEAKER CHANGES]NO [SPEAKER CHANGES]Baskerville [SPEAKER CHANGES]yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]J bell [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]L bell [SPEAKER CHANGES]yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Blackwell [SPEAKER CHANGES]no [SPEAKER CHANGES]Boles [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Brandon [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Brisson [SPEAKER CHANGES]yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Brody [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]B Brown [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]R Brown [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Brian [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Bumgardner [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Cattlin [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Clevelend [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Conrad [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Cunningham [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Daughtry [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Dixon [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Dobson [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Dockham [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Earl [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Elmore [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Faircloth [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Farmer-Butterfield [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Fisher [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Floyd [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ford [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Foushee [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Fulghum [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Gill [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Glazier [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Goodman [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]C Graham [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]G Graham [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Hager [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]D Hall [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]L Hall [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Harrison [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Hastings [SPEAKER CHANGES]No, hastings no [SPEAKER CHANGES]Hollo [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Horn [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Howard [SPEAKER CHANGES]Hurley [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]iller [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Insko [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Jackson [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Jeter [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Lambeth [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Langdon [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Lucas [SPEAKER CHANGES]yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Malone [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Martin [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]McElraft [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mcgrady [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mcneal [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Michaux [SPEAKER CHANGES]Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES]Millis [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mobly [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]T More [SPEAKER CHANGES]Murray [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Pierce [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Pittman [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Presnell [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Queen [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ramsey? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES]Richardson [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ridell [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ross [SPEAKER CHANGES]NO [SPEAKER CHANGES]Saine [SPEAKER CHANGES]yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Samuelson [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Shephard [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Speciale [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Stam [SPEAKER CHANGES]no [SPEAKER CHANGES]Starnes [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Steinburg [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Stevens [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Szoka [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Terry/ [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Tolson [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Torbit [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Turner [SPEAKER CHANGES]NO [SPEAKER CHANGES]West [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Whitmire [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Wilkins [SPEAKER CHANGES]yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Ray [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman burr [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman Holliway [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman Johnson [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes [SPEAKER CHANGES]Chairman Dollar [SPEAKER CHANGES]No [SPEAKER CHANGES]38 having voted in favor of the amendment and 48 having voted against the amendment fails. Next amendment will be offered by representative Pitmann

MN-28 V2. AMM-28 V2 Amendment 23 offered by Representative Pittman. Representative Pittman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This amendment simply would remove the eugenics payment plan from the budget and from policy. And if I could just comment on that. They say that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and I don't doubt the good intentions of this eugenics conversation plan. I'm very sympathetic to the reasons for the people supporting that. Eugenics was a horrible crime that it didn't just occur in North Carolina or across the United States, it was an international crime. There were people who were involved in it, I believe, who thought they had good intentions but were very misgauged. But behind them there were people who knew exactly what they were doing who were evil people. People like Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Mengel and Heinrich Himler. The Heinrich Himler's American friend Margaret Singer. And I would favor holding perpetrators of that crime responsible if we could get to them. Many of them are dead and gone, there's nothing we can really do about them now, and I really wish that something had been done like this if it was going to be done at the time that we did away with the eugenics plan. That would've been the proper time. But I don't believe most of those people are still around and I certainly don't think there's anybody in the legislature today who is serving when all of that was going on. I know some of you have been here a long time but I don't think you've been here that long. It's today's tax payers that we paying for this. Today's tax payers are not responsible. In 1974 I believe it was when we entered into North Carolina I was 20 years old, I was in college, and I think I was aware of what went on in Nazi Germany but I wasn't aware we did this in North Carolina at that time. A lot of people have been born long after this was all over with. I mean my own children the oldest one was born in 1980. We have a lot of tax payers in this state today who had nothing to do with this, they weren't around when it happened, they're not responsible for it and as I recall from the bible we're told we don't punish children, they're not responsible, for their parent's crimes. So I feel like we would be putting a burden on people who were not even responsible for this program to pay the compensation for it. And I don't think that that's the right thing to do. Plus I believe it sets a bad precedent and would open the door for others to seek the same kind of compensation. Opening sort of a Pandora's Box. Besides all that, I think 10 million dollars is not really likely to be sufficient anyway. There may be more than the 200 that are estimated. And it may lead to expensive litigation costing more than the 10 million dollars in addition to many more will probably crawl out of the woodwork trying to get compensation for their grievances. So lo and behold, there was an injustice that was done that we deeply regret, that we abhor and I understand the feeling of wanting to do something about that. But I don't believe that we can wipe away that injustice that was done by creating another injustice of holding people accountable who had nothing to do with it. And so I would appreciate if you would support this amendment and remove this from our budget. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Don't want to inflame anybody with any remarks that I might make I surely would not do that, but we have some hurting people crossing off who have been hurt by this program and we need to make those people whole surely we cannot really pay them for all that they've been through, but I think we need to make an attempt, and this would be just one way to get this behind us. It would always be in our memories and in all kinds of our state, but this is one way to put it to rest. And I think we have this a bipartisan at this point I believe it's a bipartisan support from this and I think we need to go out and do the right thing. I understand what Representative Pierce was saying but we do the right thing, make these families whole if we can. It's impossible. But let's give it a try. I think we will be doing the right thing and I think we will be on the right side of history if we take care of this. Thank you Mr., Madam Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee-

I'm a oppose the amendment, and I would hate to have this time without telling you something happen for five hundred years ago, but there was a case in England where they decided that the king can do no wrong. that is a that was the origin of sovereign immunity and a lot of the American Republican and small are small, our experience has been chopping away at that ridiculous doctrine of the last several hundred years, because in fact the King can do wrong. this is not about what lawmakers did fifty years ago four years ago. thirty years ago. it's what the state of North Carolina. the sovereign state of North Carolina. good to its own citizens involuntarily the thousands of them more than any other state and for longer than any other state. now we pay claims all the time for things the state itself is done wrong. the tort claims act condemnation of you. don't you fire somebody improperly. we quite pay claims. what makes this one different, I ask you, here we have a no group of people who were alive. this is not reparations. these are people who are alive and to this day they are in their bodies. the proof and the scars of what the state of North Carolina did for them involuntarily. this is not an open door to anything any claim somebody wants to bring up the bill makes the makes it very clear that the statute of limitations has run, this is a limited claim for limited. and I will remind you that this particular bill that passed the House last session, eighty six, the thirty one had pulled by I would encourage you to go ahead and do it, pass it is the just in Change speaker: opposing amendment passed the bill, Change speaker:Representative Stevens, Change speaker: Mister chair, and my guess is really more of a question which is why would support this amendment. there are an estimated seventeen hundred and twenty four hundred people who are eligible under this program to except that benefits revolver and an what happens if more than two hundred people on board because I probably provided finances for work and we also have not provided anything for administration of the program, so I guess my objection to having this the program and I guess support of the amendment is, it's not adequately fund Change speaker:the would observe, opposites that person 's comment on this, but I would observe that I believe his commission 's been working for some time to identify victims. it's been worked on for a number of years. I think I got some appreciation for the individuals were living at this time. Change speaker:some researchers and staff tell us how many that is in our ardor, only two hundred people. Change speaker:but yes if Mister bongo would like to respond to human. Change speaker:yes, ma'am, are part of fiscal research found an apartment administration presented to the general government subcommittee and March of this year. there are a hundred ninety seven, burned on victims that could not receive compensation Change speaker: that and several of Madonna Tom, Change speaker:if you have a follow-up to give solid questions. Change speaker:Mister Banda, Wells Fargo, etc. there. what happens if more than two hundred come from where we can pay the monies Change speaker: Mister not millions who live their lives in the same trick in Japan and worked on it for several years, Anita Bill says if more people come forward then in the next year will appropriate s'more money now. frankly, I don't think if they haven't come for by now, the committee will, but it's of the debt is irritable and compensate everybody there is a time. I have just a couple of years to make the claims, but were in the right ballpark, it might be additional money, but that would still be compensating the people who were severely damaged by the actions of the state of North Carolina and compensating them in a much smaller amount than you would expect if you were net if this happened to you negligently by some doctor of energy by Change speaker: Mister Chairman, I understand this is a sensitive issue. I was born in nineteen seventy three, as most young on South Carolina

The thing that strikes me here is, for the vast majority of people in this room, we were alive when this happened. This is not something that happened 50, 100, 150, 250 or on June 15, 1215. This is something that happened in our lifetime. There are victims that are alive today, direct victims that were subject to a medical procedure as administered by the State of North Carolina. Hence, I feel we have an obligation to compensate those direct victims, and I would oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't think that we have all the answers on this. I don't think we know what all of the ramifications are. There are some concerns about the dollar value; there's concerns about the number of people. I know that this has come up before, and I think that we all would have been better served had this been debated on the floor on a separate bill as a separate issue, rather than to have been slid into the budget here. So I recommend that we vote yes on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to remind everybody, we just slid something into the budget just not too long ago. We do it all the time. But, if you weren't here, perhaps you don't know the history, and we don't have the time today to go through it, but clearly North Carolina was wrong. In spite of the fact that there was some national issue around eugenics in other states, we represent North Carolina, and when North Carolina is wrong we were sent here to make those adjustments. Let me remind you that we've done it over and over and over again. We've had local legislation in various cities and towns. We ran, some of us, on positions that we would come here and we would reverse decisions and straighten then out, and we've done it. I've opposed a lot of that, but we still did it because we felt we had an obligation to correct the wrong. We have an obligation today to correct the wrong. We've got people who have lived with this, who have suffered, their families have suffered, and we're going to sit here and pretend that nothing has really happened. We should be ashamed as a state. This is one way to make some small amend. And, yes, it's probably not enough money. But, you know, we just didn't put enough money, we said, in the opportunities, but those who will have the opportunity will take advantage of it, and that will be the same thing here. We need to do what's right. We need to oppose this amendment. This issue has been debated on the floor many times for a long time. We need to now go ahead and correct this wrong that North Carolina made. We represent North Carolina, and we need to do right by this state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I am against this amendment, and I'll tell you why. I have been involved with this since I have been down here. This was not done to just little boys. It was done to boys and girls, men and women, black and white, and it was done by a panel that was chosen by the State of North Carolina. It started in America, eugenics did (I thought it started in Germany; I couldn't believe America was the start of this), according to what I have been told and read. Having met some of the victims, some did not know until they got married that they could not have children, and then they found out why they couldn't have children. Yes, maybe their parents did sign for them, maybe they didn't know what they were signing, we don't know. Supposedly some of the records have been lost. We need to know exactly what they did to those little boys. Maybe some were sent to reformatory school, and they felt that they weren't minding, therefore they were sterilized. I just feel like it's very important that North Carolina does the right thing. I know it's money. We didn't do this, but the people are living now, from 1929 to 1974, longer than any other state, and if we don't do it now, it will keep coming back every year. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any other state in our nation that has compensated the victims? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I see none, is my understanding ??. Representative McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. As a mother, the most important thing to

this, having children, and now, having grandchildren, and to take that right away from you, by someone and sometimes not even have known that that was taken away from you, is the worst thing I think that could ever happen to someone. And not to give these victims who are still alive, some of them barely alive, and not to do this as a state when we do have the money this year, is shameful. And I am against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brody. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, just to start out, if we recall we really don't have the money, now we're looking around to spend, to get any kind of money we have, but just my opinion and I'll be brief, is that I've got to go back to the people or, I've got to represent the people of my district, and tell them that they are gonna be taxed for something that they did not do. What I would suggest, to anybody who wants to do this is, you're always welcome to volunteer, to put together a program, put together a fund, a drive of some sorts, to address these issues, but I cannot, in good conscience go back to the people of my district and ask them to be taxed for something that they had nothing to do with. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. As I sit here and listen in and look at this amendment, when we first reconvened here in a June assembly, I can recall the Speaker of this House call us a group of Representatives together. And said and expressed that this was and is important, the Speaker of this House took a very bold step in trying to compensate these victims for something we all say we had nothing to do with it. And if I sit here and I look at the highway's trust fund, the highway fund, well you know, we're still trying to improve roads for what people did in the past, we're still trying to do that. We're still trying to plan roads for the future, we are doing that. But here we are talking about 10 million dollars from 20 million dollars from last year to compensate victims, and I don't too much agree with things that Skip say, but today he has made some very profound statements, and I'm about to be in agreement with him wholeheartedly 100%. And I might pray tonight, you know for agreeing with him on this, but we owe this, and I say again, if the Speaker of this House agrees that this is is important, then I do too. And from a biblical standpoint, and we talk about biblical, the one that I serve, say he only put enough weight on you that you can carry, and 10 million dollars is not a loss, so when we talk about that, we pay claims all the time, all the time, we're just talking about 10 million dollars, haven't said that, if the money run out, the money run out, then the next general assembly will have the responsibility of appropriating additional funds if need be, that's up to the next general assembly. But what we are saying here today is that, let's get on with this, let's pay the victims the 10 million dollars which we're down from 20 million dollars and let's move this day forward, I support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative- would you like to revise that last remark? I think he opposes the amendment. Representative Baumgartner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairmen, I would like to speak in favor of this amendment because I think it's wrong to make people pay for something they didn't have anything to do with, and I can't go back to my district and face people and say, yes I voted to take your money and give it to these people, we've had plenty of time since all this happened, we could've settled this a long time ago, if some people wanted to settle it, but obviously that didn't happen, and we're growing government right here on page 27, line 13 and 14, and 25 and 26, we're creating an- in the Department of Administration the Office of Justice for Sterilization Victims. There's no telling where's this gonna wind up, it says 10 million now, it could wind up being 100

Representative: …because people that did not get any money are going to sue. We are opening a can of worms here. It coucld get very ugly and expensive. I could not even get congress to vote for this to force people, now, to pay for this. Speaker: Representative Holler? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Again, I tried to remain silent, like last time, but the story that I got to tell, well, first thing, I have been here four years next week. I have heard this subject since I got here. So, someone who has not, or has not been listening, I understand, but, we pay for these things all the time, i.e. Medicaid, medicare. Someone who goes to the hospital, I am going to pay for some of that, and you are too; and, vice versa: if I go to the hospital, you are going to pay for it. Several stories I could tell but one, a current one. Last time, last session, we passed this and senate did not. A lady in my county had come forward and had a newspaper article, who went back to her after it passed, for a comment, and she said that we were just waiting for her to die. “They are just waiting for us to die:” that is the signal we sent last session. Is that the signal you want to send again this session? Vote for this and vote against the $10 million. If you have 9 million residents and collected a dollar, you would just about have it, but that is not the way we collect taxes. It is NC: we pay for things other people do all the time, and vice versa. So, let’s go on and do this, and send the right signal, not that we are waiting for them to die. Speaker: Representative Steinberg? Representative: Thank you MR. Chairman. With a name like Steinberg you can imagine that I am a little sensitive to issues of eugenics. I find this absolutely hard to believe that this happened in a state like NC. I know that it happened elsewhere. I am kind of confounded by the comments I hear today as it relates to how this is going to impact the folks back home. How are the folks back home going to react to this. It could be something that could affect us negatively, in terms of us getting re-elected, but there is a bigger issue here than whether we are getting re-elected. That is the issue of doing the right thing. How anyone, and I respect everyone’s opinion, how anyone, with deep thought and prayer, could come to the conclusion that we need just to idly skip by this and forget about it – the stain on NC history, is, to me, beyond the pale. The other states in the Union, I understand, who have been involved with eugenics in the past, these folks have done nothing like what we are preparing to do right now. I think that says a lot about us as people in the state of NC. we are not looking for someone else to be trendsetter: we will be the trendsetter. We are involved in reforming government, and part of that reforming government means that we need to pay attention to things done in the past. We are trying to correct wrong through tax legislation and other statutes we have enacted, but somehow, there are those that feel like that this is not worthy of that kind of consideration. When in fact, I cannot believe that we can proceed on any course, to do anything, until we blot out this injustice. It will always be there. We will not be able to deny that it happened. Nonetheless, we can take a giant step here to

Who correct a great wrong that was done, and I will be voting against this amendment, and I will be enthusiastically supporting the bill, and I will have no problem going back home and talking with the folks in my district, some of whom may not understand just why I did what I did here today. But that's my job, to try and convince them why I voted the way I did. And I'm not worrying about outcomes. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dobson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know the hour is drawing late in the afternoon, so I'll be brief. Notwithstanding the last debate on opportunity scholarships, there are not too many issues that my good friend, Representative Stam, and I disagree on, and this one is no different. I do not think it is unreasonable to compensate individuals who are alive today for the wrongs that have been done to them. I think it's the right thing to do, and for those reasons, I would ask that you oppose the amendment. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cunningham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I wasn't here, but I'm here now, and I did attend the meetings that came across the state on the eugenics, and I believe that youngest victim was 12 years old. Most of those people were poor, some of them mentally challenged, and children with behavior problems. And some of their parents were even threatened to take away their food stamps, or other things that were provided by the state. So I do oppose the amendment. Today, the North Carolina House has the opportunity to correct the wrong that was done, to let the victims know that they do matter. It is time now. Thank you Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I'm gonna speak a second time, and I would just have to say that there's no question that what was done to these people was utterly reprehensible and needs to be thoroughly repudiated. And despised, what was done to them. But, you know, there's a big difference between us helping to pay somebody else's medical bills, and punishing us for crimes we didn't commit. I mean, you know, I have two sons. If I go strangle somebody today, which one of my sons are you going to put to death for it? That's what we're talking about, punishing people who did not commit the crime, because you can't get your hands on the people who did. And I just can't see the justice in that, I don't believe this is going to straighten anything out, I don't believe it's gonna correct anything, it's gonna be making some statement that makes us feel better about ourselves because we hated what was done. That's about all it amounts to, and I don't think, you know, that really $50,000 apiece is really adequate. If you're gonna do this, I don't think any sum we could give them could make up for it. And so the sum is not really as important, although, as has been said, we're struggling to figure out what we're gonna do in the budget and a lot of other things and we're gonna do this that's really not going to correct what happened. And I understand the desire for it, I understand the feelings that are behind it, I respect that, but I just don't feel it's the responsible thing to do, to make people today pay the price for what somebody did way back when, and, sir, if it'd be appropriate, I'd ask for division on this vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Division having been called for, Representative Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We often talk around here about what is the role of government, and one of the roles of government is to protect the safety of its citizens. Our citizens trust us to defend them against injustice. We have ways to defend them and to compensate them if they are wrongfully convicted, if they are wrongfully imprisoned. We should have one if they have been wrongfully sterilized. You say that we don't have the money; they don't have the children or the grandchildren. I ask you to oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the amendment, sir. I was here last session, and I'll be honest with all of you, I was one of those that opposed eugenics funding. In listening to many people that know a lot more about this than I do and reading and doing research, there were some in my county; I know a young lady at 16 -- that was born slow, she wasn't severly handicapped -- but she was raped at 16 years old and then, after she gave birth to a child, she was sterilized because it was

The child went on to lead a successful life was adopted into a family, was also an ?? in the air force and she never got to know that child, because of the records it was disclosed. And I am sure in this with you because as representative Holley said It not just happened to one type of individual, it happened to many. And I don't think it was right and I didn't support it last time because I don't think you can make up with money for what's happened with some of these people. And I know the question was asked about representative Presnell and we all discussed this before whether or not any other states have done this. But I;d like to share with you I try to tell people not ministry. It doesn't really matter to me what someone else down the street is doing, I am responsible for doing the right thing and I believe the right thing or North Carolina and for us is to support this 10 million dollars to these victims and I can't answer for what someone else does and doesn't do but I know in my I have to do what I think is right and so I'm not going to be critical with supporting this. I just ask you to ask yourselves, what is the right thing to do? Because we all have to get up tomorrow and face ourselves into the mirror and ask ourselves have we done the right thing. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the committee is to pass the amendment offered by representative Pittman. We will do it by the call of the roll and the clerk will call the roll. The question is being placed and the Clerk will call the roll. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I won't be able to vote on it because of not having adequate information. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will call the roll. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Arp. Avila. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Baskerville. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] J. Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] L. Bell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Blackwell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Branden. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Brisson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No [SPEAKER CHANGES] Brody. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] B. Brown. R. Brown. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Brian. Bumgardener. Catlin. Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Conrad. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Cunningham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Daughtry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dixon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dobson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dockham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Earle. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Elmore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Farmer-Butterfield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Fischer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Floyd. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ford. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Nein. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Foushee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Fulghum. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] GIll. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Goodman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] C. Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] G. Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hager. D. Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] L. Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hastings. Hollo. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Horn. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Howard. Hurley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Iler. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Insko. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jackson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jeter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Labeth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Langdon. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Lucas. Malone. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Martin. McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] McNeill? Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mobley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] T.Moore. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pierce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Presnell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Queen. Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Richardson. Ridell. Ross. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Saine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Samuelson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Schaffer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speciale. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Starnes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Steinburg. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Szoka. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Terry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Tolson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Torbett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Turner. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] West. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whitmire. Wilkins. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wray. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman Burke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman Holloway. Chairman Johnson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman Dollar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES]

Committee will come to order. Committee will come to order. The ayes being 22 and the no’s being 64, the amendment is not agreed to. We’d like to take just a moment… We’ll move to the next amendment, but I would like to take a moment. This afternoon we have some additional pages with us who we’d like to welcome to the committee. Lilly Rose from Pit County, sponsored by Representative Martin, S. Martin. Christine Rhodes from Catawba County, sponsored by Majority Leader Starnes. Drew Rober from Orange County, sponsored by Representative Insko. Mary Catherine Starnes from Caldwell County, sponsored by Representative Starnes. And Stefan Stiner in Orange County, sponsored by Representative Howard. The next amendment is ALH-39V1. Representative Pierce. ALH-39V1, Amendment 43. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s ALH-39, Version 1, Amendment 43. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is an amendment for the Richmond County Juvenile Detention Center, and it’s very important to that area and surrounding areas. They have youth coming from different counties to be housed there on a temporary basis. We know how important this facility is in that area of the state. It really reaches out to a lot of areas. We were able to find the funding from different areas and I just wanted to bring it before the committee. And if I could just have staff to further explain it, Representative Burr would help me out please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’d be fine. Staff… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Where the funding came from. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff would like to… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Chair. The funding for this came from removing the expansion funding for item 51 for the Juvenile Justice Community Programs. That was $1,000,000 a year recurring. And from Item 44 on page I6 of your Committee Report, which is the expansion funds for electronic monitoring equipment, and it reduces that funding by $287,000 a year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Daughtry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Regrettably we’d have to speak against this amendment. The fact is that we did not choose the facilities to close. They were picked out by the Department of Prisons. We have too many beds, and this was one that was chosen. And to take the money from the community programs is a program that the governor is very interested in. It has to do with drug addiction and ways to fight drug addiction with treatment. We would respectfully request that you vote against this amendment.

Further discussion or rebate on the amendment. Representative Ramsey? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Chairman, a question for the amendment sponsor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce, could you explain why, supposedly there's a surplus of beds, but why this facility is needed? And was it right, originally included in the Governor's budget? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It was not included in the Governor's budget because it was closed but that, that surrounding area, Scotland, Hoke, Robeson, Richmond surrounding areas receive juveniles from those areas and probably other areas, and we have some IDAs here today that know the importance of that and they shared it with me along with the sheriffs in the surrounding area and the juvenile agencies in that area. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Also, part two was to take some of the money I think, if I'm corrected from staff from the monitoring? And she, all is yes. This is a very important part of justice reinvestment that we just passed last year, and I think this would in another respect the gentleman from Richmond, I would have to oppose this amendment as chair and because we need those monitors for the justice reinvestment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Goodman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chair, I just want to reinforce what Representative Pierce said. Our sheriff says this will create a hardship on his Sheriff's Department. It would be tough on a struggling economy down where we are and I ask that you support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on the amendment? If not, those in favor of the amendment please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment fails. Next amendment is Representative Boles' amendment, amendment number 53 ALL-59 version two. Representative Boles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chair. What, what this does is, recommendation from the Department of Corrections. It will, extend, move the date I think of Wayne Correctional closure to October 1 of thirteen and Johnson would, it moved that date out so that we're able to go from a minimum to a, medium to a minimum custody in Johnson county. It gives them time to do the repairs that were needed, and they're taking it out of their consolidation effectiveness. This is once again by their staff and I recommend it to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on the amendment. If not, those in favor of Representative Boles' amendment, amendment number 53, please say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed no. The amendment passes. Next, Representative Michaux, amendment number 39, AMK-23 version one. Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chairman. What this does, it cuts the excellent public schools act by five million dollars and removes the CTE bonuses and it restores ten point seven million into the teachers salary supplements, to allow the STEM teachers to get massed the supplement after the deadline. It's just that simple. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chairman. The cochairs of education and preps would recommend against this. This is going back and cutting money that was committed, it's not new money, but cutting about four million dollars out of money that was available this past year for funding the requirements under the excellent school act which include the new provision that is designed to ensure that all children are able to read by the time they finish the third grade before they go on to the remainder of their schooling. Secondly, the, I came to the legislature a little over four years ago, and one of the statements that I heard frequently and early was that people would say in behalf of programs. Well, this is data supported, or evidence based. In this instance the CTE program that is dealt with here, the career technology education piece

Is modeled after a program coming out of Florida and that's the data, that's the evidence that supports the program and what it represented, and what Michaux's amendment does is it guts the program by deleting the portions of the program that provide an incentive or a bonus to teachers in school systems for their success. It's an ideological opposition to paying our educators who do a better job for our students and it demonstrated by the success of the students, and I urge you to not gut the program by making that change. The final thing is that here again it's an evidence based, data driven decision. The information provided to us is that having a Master's, with the exception of one very isolated area involving math teachers in high school, does not produce better outcomes for students who have teachers with Master's versus teacher's who simply have a Bachelor's, and we're trying to put on many into programs that are data supported, evidence supported and new programs that are innovative rather than simply sticking with something because it's something that we've always done. So, I would encourage the Committee strongly to reject this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes, just to speak a second time. The STEM Program I think is a program that deserves a holding in our whole educational system and what we've done is we've put an arbitrary deadline particularly for those who are receiving help to get their Master's. What this would do is extend that deadline for those teachers who can better perform and a lot of folks' instances with having received their Master's. I suggest that you give it a try and let's see where we go. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Blackwell. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Speak the second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The evidence does not support that STEM teachers do any better for their students if they have a Master's than if they only have a Bachelor's. Lets don't pay extra for something that doesn't give us more bind for the book in terms of student outcomes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Avila. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I have a questions. I'm not sure if it goes to staff or it might go to Representative Blackwell but sometimes teachers become teachers because of the Master's Degree. They don't get an Undergraduate in teaching. They maybe had an Undergraduate in another degree and they get their Master's in Teaching, which takes them into the classroom. How is this being handled? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Blackwell. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: If you have a Master's and are receiving Master's pay, but the end of the coming school year you will be grandfathered and can continue to receive the pay. After that time, unless you are required to have a Master's in order to be employed by the school system, or I think now with an amendment unless you are a nurse, you will not receive Master's pay. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Further discussion or debate on the amendment? If not. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Mr. Chair. Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: A question for Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: This is your amendment.

Then were saying that these individuals are already in the pipeline? Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair conceivably there could be some individuals who are already in post-secondary programs who would not complete in time to be eligible to get the supplement before this provision goes on to effect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, if I can just make a comment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, mam [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank you for clarifying what is does. We’ve got individuals who are already in the process, I think that is what this amendment will do, let’s be fair to them, they’ve already started it. Clearly, I think that people, individuals go to school and continue to get further degrees because they want to be compensated for that as well, and I mean they are already in the system, that’s where they are headed and I think they should be allowed to get the support for that degree and I support the amendment . [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there discussions or debate on the amendment? If not, the question is that if for those in favor of Representative Shaw’s amendment. Amendment number thirty nine, please says aye, Aye Those oppose no? No The no’s have it, the amendment fails. Amendment number 38, Representative Murray, ame-31 version five. Representative Murray [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman, this amendment seeks to broaden the and do some edits to the farm supervisions of the hss budget. The first provisions on line one and two, deletes the four brand limit for medic aid and health choice. On pages four and five, delete section 12h.13g which deals with actual acquisition cost or invoice processing and gives a department a menu of options to achieve the same amount of savings. The next section on 21-23, this addresses something the department is already working on, dealing with proper authorizations for adah and add medications that I believe many people in this room might need, on pages 25 and 26 look at the squirrel, on lines 25 and 26 this addresses the ability for c c and c to develop care management programs, just add some clarifying language. Starting in line 30 on page one and going to page two, this addresses the withhold, there’s a two percent withhold dispensing fees for the pharmacy, this establishes a program by which some pharmacies might be able to participate and earn some of that with hold back that’s the idea of the withhold, the shared savings to develop new programs for a broader savings, so this establishes a way for pharmacies to earn that back and participate in a shared savings program with the department and then the duration of the amendment just reflects the money report to reflect the changes in this amendment and I will move that the option to be able to answer any questions. Representative, Avila [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks you Mr. chairman, I would ask for your support for this amendment, we had worked very hard with the pharmacists to overcome some deficiencies in the pricing which was going to be a little detrimental and hard for them to deal with and we really appreciate the effort that they have put forward to still come up and help us meet the savings that we had set. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Representative Pitman [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chair I have a question for Representative Murray, Representative e Murray do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I am just trying to get a clear handle on this thing, I’m wondering is this going to encourage or slow down the use of drugs like Ritalin and that sort of thing? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Generally proper authorization is a management tool to help make sure that is appropriately prescribed and it’s a management tool that we appropriately put in place and it generally results in less utilization of these medications but at the end of the day it’s a management tool that we use to help make sure that it’s appropriately prescribed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you

I just have a question to bill sponsor staffs. I don't understand a lot so how does it affect House bills or does it? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This will be mainly target outpatient drug claims, outpatient pharmacy claims so this will not affect impatient house bill claims, outpatient house bill claims, community based pharmacy services. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on the amendment. If not, those in favor of amendment 38 offered by representative Murry say Aye, those opposed No. The amendment passes. Next up, representative Faircloth, amendment number 50A which is ALL-61 version 1. Representative Faircloth. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. This is a technical change in section 18B 11 having due the acceptance of credit cards by the courts and it simply moves the date out to February 1st, 2015. It also takes out the the collection for restitution as requested by the AOC. I ask you to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? If not, those in favor of representative Faircloth amendment, amendment number 50A please say Aye, those oppose No. The amendment passes. Next up, representative Steingburg. Amendment number 44 which ALG-26 version 4. Representative Steinburg? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Basically, what this amendment does is restores some fundings for the one of the partnerships which have come up so often here during discussion for the budget, the partnership for the sounds and What this amendment is proposing to do is to partially restore what was budgeted for this area, $195,704 which in the governor's budget has been reduced or the house has reduced that.., No, the house reduced it altogether and...Let me get this right. The house is recommending a $58,000 grant as opposed to the $195,704 that was there last year. That creates a difference of 137,704 which is a one time no recurring expense. The money is proposed to be taken from North Carolina branding initiative. Now the thinking behind this, is being discussed before with other partnerships, is to allow this particular group to transition, not to go completely to zero and disappear. It is basically buying them a year. It's a non-recurring expense but it is giving them the transition to independence over the physical 12 months and eliminating these partnerships, a lot of them ?? ??, is very very difficult. This is a partner parcel of tourism, helps promote tourism, and tourism is one of the biggest industries in this state and certainly over the eastern North Carolina, that is indeed the case. This amendment asks that to restore to the ?? of 137,704 to come from North Carolina Branding initiative and isn't it interesting that this money is coming out of the branding initiative and the branding initiative is

One of the things we are promoting the state of North Carolina is money being used to promote the state of North Carolina for tourism among other things; and, while we are doing that we are on the verge of closing some of these places that are absolutely committed to creating tourism; So, this is just kind of a one year fix to let the get their sea legs and then they'll find some other arrangement to be self sustaining. Speaker :Representative Mckelraft Mckelraft -Thank you Mr. chair. - The partnership for the sound is a group of museums and we approached them with a grass roots museum. We got a resolution from them, that they would like to have the Estuarium as part of the grassroots museum , and so we did unlike the senate. They gave them zero funding. We put them as on of the grassroots museum at 58 thousand their first year; and, then we put them at 58 thousand the second year with the funding mechanism that will give them about 65 thousand with their budget in the second year. Now that 123 thousand that they were not funded by the senate. They will continue as a grassroots museum where they will continue getting funding as a museum. Now, they have not been left out in the cold. They are a museum. They agreed to that;so, I don't understand what this is all about. They are trying to take money from branding for the entire state in order to provide funding for this museum which we have already given funding to; so, please do not support this amendment. thank you. Speaker : representative Malone Malone -Thank you Mr. Chairman. - We have an eight hundred thousand dollar expenditure for branding, and; if you look at the Steinburg Amendment, this foundation does branding itself. We are just simply moving money from one place to the other;and, I don't think that the money we are talking about is all that big to worry about. I think it is a good amendment; and, I would vote for it. Speaker : Further discussion or debate on the amendment ? If not those in favor of representative Steinburg's amendment, amendment number 44 please say "I." Those opposed "No." The amendment fails :Next amendment is I believe 55A representative Glazier AMK-28 version 1, representative Glazier. Glazier - Thank you very much Mr. Chairman , and ; what this amendment seeks to do, and I believe it has, I talked to representative Horn, and he has the support of the co-chairs of education. Most of you know there is a seven hundred and thirty million dollar outstanding budget that the state owes the public schools that is sitting there; and, we have only paid 18 million dollars on the judgement. This doesn't change anything that is in the budget but says to the extent that we realize excess receipts that we don't anticipate in the civil penalty and forfeiture fund. They can be allocated to the school technology fund as a way, weather if its one dollar or a hundred dollars, that we can begin slowly to continue to down pay our judgement and at the same time aid school technology. I know of no opposition to the amendment. Speaker :Representative Stan Stan -This is not opposition but a question to representative Glazier. Speaker :Representative Glazier, do you yield ? Glazier -certainly Stan -Doing it this way efficient language so that we actually get credit on the judgement ? Glazier :Mr chair may I respond ? Speaker :Yes sir Glazier - It will because anything that we pay into that fund we have previously indicated would be credited to the judgement. You certainly can add in the technical corrections bill any sentence that might make it clearer. Speaker : Further discussion or debate on the amendment? Representative Presshill Presshill -Where does the civil penalty and forfeiture fund money go rite now ? Speaker :Mr Staff, do you want to address that? Staff - Chris Nordstrom fiscal research: Currently the money is appropriated to public schools on the basis of ADM .

Time to 46.3 million is budgeted against the public from time to 18,000,000 school technology underneath the men would not change the figures further discussion today on that if not better than they were represented by a command and the number of times a week a high that Putnam that happening and 1/2 that have occurred in the butt of a man in the number 51 A.L. beyond that time in one version one represented by law to five time I could get the two Phillip A(SPEAKER CHANGES) would be of the yard to two years of time left in here and that of the money that would otherwise good to the Western North Carolina regional economic development commission for the time Alan dollars or two apart palatable former county and fed the incorporated likely to board Alan Corbett year, the two filling in for a week from the time we got a couple the county's areas and Michael UF additional FL Boland representative left where they live in time that if they've contacting the time, du Lac year will come from fat: we talk about the lining of the partnership did anything happen to have more time to take an economic and recommended what the F?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) they've got a long time in a way to partnership toward the wall, where women away, get a lot of good time to eliminate of a bank loan Doc more women in law, and he did that I am the only a man I play better than what we want my free camping at the females. And time the ATF and then only by the end of the discussion today, then but one that the articulate did not benefit by turned in at least a high that the Pan Am the active parent that they had to have been represented by a problem and have a captive bred that time here's a man and 58 ALDF 32 version one time time : are you working guy a break in right now with two time alone, take time to time time that the we have some additional national men and two halftime, or pick up the place, leading-edge to be patched L a time , waiting for this menace to be patched up like to recognize some additional pages for the British Jackson ballot and command and conquer, attended college game two H lake and larger,(SPEAKER CHANGES) Kenneth Flamm time they departure like and occupied the objective is to Allah try and break down from time ??.....

By Representative Fulghum. Trey Ellis of Mecklenburg County, sponsored by Representative Schaffer. Pages. We appreciate you joining us today. The Committee will briefly be at ease while the Sargent at Arms pass off the next group of amendments. This will just take a moment and then we will proceed. Come back to order. We'll move onto the next amendment. Next amendment is ALG-19V4 Amendment 37 offered by Representative Fisher and Representative Fisher is recognized to present her amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Chairman. This amendment is one that would assure that there is funding for the biennium for the Humanities Council. I've spoken with the Chairs of General Government and I believe that this is an acceptable amendment as we prepare Humanities Council to deal with a budget hole that they

... AC in the next couple of years. So I request the committee's support. Thank you so much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion on the amend... Representative Cleveland. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, the chairs have agreed to this amendment. The chairs have agreed to this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion before the committee is the acceptance of the amendment. All those in favor say Aye. Opposed No. The Ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Next amendment is A.L.H. 37 v. 3 offered by Representative Glazier. This is amendment 41, and it's ALH - 37 v. 3. Representative Glazier is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. This is also a consent amendment that the chairs, I believe, agreed to. It's consistent with a bill that passed the House 113 to 1, although it narrows the bill a bit. It just assures that if we're going to surcharge students, that they and their parents receive notice ahead of time that that's going to happen and also doesn't count towards their tuition surcharge courses they've taken prior to July 1, 2013 at the time of the budget that are not in our system, but from then on will count because they then have notice. And I would move adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chairs have already agreed to this amendment and we'd recommend it to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those in favor of the amendment offered by Representative Glazier please signify by saying Aye. All opposed No. The Ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Next amendment is by Representative Samuelson. Amendment ALL-56 v. 4. It's amendment number seven. ALL-56 v. 4 and Representative Samuelson is recognized to offer her amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can we temporarily displace this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the sponsor's request, the amendment has been displaced. Hopefully, you have the next three amendments that have been...the Sergeant at Arms is passing out. You should have at your desk are, hopefully, ALM... this is by Representative Ramsey, ALM-27 v. 4. It's amendment 35 offered by Representative Ramsey. I think that's at your desk. Representative Ramsey is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I think that this is the one regarding the regional partnerships. Is that correct? Inquiry of the chair. I've misplaced it on the... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe that's correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. It was proposing to take the funding for the northeast, southeast, and the west, divide that three ways. The initial amount was 1.9 million. The committee earlier approved an amendment to remove a half million dollars for RTI, so I assume the amount is now 1.4 million. The rationale for this amendment is we either need to make a decision not to fund the regional partnerships and let them die this year, or we need to find out what the Department of Commerce proposal for public-private partnerships will be. The net effect for western North Carolina previously, Advantage West got about a million dollars for marketing our region. If you add up all the money from Buncombe and Henderson counties that our funded through our county commissioners, that's around a half a million dollars. The other counties would be much smaller than that. So when you take a million dollars out of the west, it's a significant impact. And if there's nothing to come behind that to back-fill that, you're going to put our region at a severe economic disadvantage. And that's the purpose of the amendment, to help the more rural areas of the state. And I would ask for the committee to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's a long amendment. May I ask staff to explain where the money's coming from and explain [AUDIO BREAK] this amendment, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, can you assist Representative McElraft, please. [AUDIO ENDS]

So this amend… This is Aubrey from Fiscal Research. This amendment reallocates the 1.4 million to three of the regional economic development commissions and partnerships as opposed to the seven to which it’s being distributed currently. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We would oppose – [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. We would oppose this amendment, There are still seven regional partnerships. The Department of Commerce does have a plan for those partnerships. They’re called prosperity zones. They intend to… They have had conversations with the seven regional partnerships. They intend to use those regional partnerships and glean their expertise, and so at this point I would continue to fund those regional partnerships, and please do not put the funding in only the three. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tolson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, same thing. I hope that we will oppose this amendment. It doesn’t even mention the eastern regions, so I guess we just don’t exist at all if you’re going to take the money I know we want. But this does not even mention us but it’s affecting the money that we’ll get, so I hope you’ll oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, speak a second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Representative Ramsey. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And it was my understanding that the eastern region had a dedicated funding source that the other partnerships did not have. I would accept a friendly amendment to include the eastern region, if that was within the rules to divide it four ways instead of three ways. The intent was to help the more rural areas. The Charlotte, the Triad and the Raleigh-Durham areas have significant corporate support, have Fortune 500 companies headquartered in those regions and have much greater ability to raise private dollars than we do in the eastern parts of the state, so that was the motivation of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft, do you want to respond? Are you amendable to that? If you are, we’ll displace the bill; if not, we’ll just… we’ll vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would still say no to that. At this point we do not need to divide those partnerships. As I said before, it’s not a lot of money to begin with, the 1.4 million, and at this point, we are still working with Commerce to work with all of those partnerships, even those four that are not in those urban areas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens and then Chairman Burr. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, I just wanted to point out that this leaves you and me out too. So we frequently get left out of everything that happens with Greensboro, and we were told last year it was fine for us to leave but we didn’t get to exit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chairman Burr. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would just as well as Representative McElraft and Stevens and others ask that members oppose this amendment. I am in the Piedmont Region Triad and in the Charlotte region and I represent a tier one and a tier two county when they’re not close to being anything as a Charlotte and don’t have those kinds of funds to raise those monies, so he’s taking away from rural counties as well that are in the Piedmont area, so I would respectfully ask that you oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The no’s have it. The amendment fails. Next up is ALD-32 volume 1, amendment number 66. Representative Pierce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, I don’t have a copy of… [SPEAKER CHANGES] We’re going to displace that when we’ve got one and we’ll come back to that one. Next up is ALG-24 volume 1, amendment 36. Representative Faircloth. We don’t have that one either? We’ll come back to that one too. I’m just taking them in the order that I’ve got them up here. Let’s try this one. AME-34 volume 2, amendment64. Representative Fisher. And it says it’s been passed out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ve got it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does everybody have that one? Representative Fisher, you’re recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This

Change Speaker:I just just to refresh the memory and that they were here during the last session and for some of the freshmen who were not this amendment has to do with child care subsidy allotment and an agreement that we came to the last budget cycle to and hold the different counties, harmless from this census data and and and then to a point a working committee to work with the CDE to come up with a way to implement the childcare allotment formula in a way that would be at least harmful to the most counties that work has taken place this amendment incorporates some of the agreed to language for child care subsidy, and I would appreciate your support if it, if for no other reason that allow this committee to continue their work with DVD and to come up with fairer ways to and a lot childcare subsidy. thank you Change Speaker: it will just remain these Change Speaker: Mister Chairman Change Speaker: this is to add a little bit more to what I what I said earlier in your previous remedies reduce warming Change Speaker: and drought followed Jaws not a lot of pieces of paper appeared loses little confusion you. you can continue thank you message on this that the language in this amendment is a little different from what we had last budget cycle in that it begins to look at ways to a lot child care subsidy, it will put the house budget in contention with the sentence, which will give time for the parties to work out language that is favorable to bed chambers on the main thing that I'm trying to do here is an and with me. actually, with the assistance of rest and McGrady. he and I both worked on this last time and we are working on it together again this year to just give back committee a chance to continue their work with with the department to come up with an equitable funding formula for child care subsidy Change Speaker:and keep person immigrated in person of idea would return support for the amendment last time is driven Fisher indicated we went to dinner burned on some grandfather clause to allow us to work on this allocation, and there's been an ongoing work being done here. my understanding is the amendment reflects the work being done and further allows it to continue. I would add that, ironically, how would the work being done, Henderson County is taking a pretty good cut hit, though I support the amendment. despite the apparent financial impact on my own County Change Speaker:are said about thinking the server is not to Change Speaker:staff their father while in numbers in line one is now a staff produces herbs available for question, please verify one Change Speaker: I read the review, the question. hello. I don't know where staff was of a very good to get this man had Change Speaker:been differently a fiscal research the end, it is actually line twenty two room Change Speaker:when he satisfied is synthesized as I answer question firms in a further discussion further debate on the amendment sin done this, it is Smith's gophers

[background voices] Committee just remain at ease while we wait on staff. [background voices] Staff says that it is correct, so seeing no further discussion, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment carries. Next up is ALE-31, Volume 2, Amendment 47. Representative Horn. Representative Horn, you're recognized to present your amendment. Dash 31, Amendment No. 47. You're recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment specifies that the newly created positions on...hold on just a second, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sure, sure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, I just had to kind of get my own mind around this ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Perfectly understandable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's the positions of Chief Information Officer to be reporting to the State Board of Education instead of to DPI, so that the State Board continues to exercise it's constitutional requirement for oversight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would he please explain that again, Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. Representative Cleveland. What I understand and I'll give him some assistance here. There are some positions that it is redirecting that the State Board of Education would oversight over those positions as opposed to DPI. Further discussion, further debate? Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye, all opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Next up is ALE-30, Volume 2, Amendment No. 46, Representative Gill. And we'll give you a minute to find it if you need, but you're recognized when you're ready, Representative Gill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, very much. All of our teachers deserve a bonus for the tremendous job they do preparing our students to be globally competitive. Therefore, we should not discriminate by trying to give one group of teachers a bonus without looking at all teachers. And I know that our budget does not allow us to give increases to all teachers, so I'm asking that we remove the bonuses from the AP teachers and put it in the LEA adjustment for 2014-2015. And I also need to remind folks that DPI has a goal to increase access to these advanced placement courses. This is part of their rigor, they're goal to increase graduation rates. When we pit one group of teaches against another, as far as bonuses are concerned, we cause a moral problem. And I would ask you to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blackwell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairs of ?? would ask the committee to oppose this amendment. It is similar to the earlier amendment which was designed to deny the aspect of this program that involves bonuses for teachers who are successful with their students in AP and in national baccalaureate courses. Again, we got data, we don't just have a goal over at DPI, we've got data that shows that this has worked dramatically well in Florida over 12 years. The bonus is part of the model that...

We're trying to copy. I suggest we should save all the money in the program if we're not prepared to follow the model that's worked. And for that reason I ask you to reject the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So further discussion, further debate. Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The nos appear to have it. The nos do have it, and the amendment fails. Next up is ALH-40 volume 1, amendment number forty nine, Representative Adams. Representative Adams, you're recognized whenever you’re ready. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chair. Ladies and gentlemen of the committee, we all know that education is the passport to the future, that students today are having a very difficult time paying their way. There was a recent article in Sunday’s paper, in my paper, that talked about student debt and the responsibilities that they have and that they have taken on while in school. This amendment will basically decrease the tuition for non-resident students from the twelve, I think it's twelve percent of the budget now, to six percent, and that would just put these schools in line in terms of the ivy state students with all of the other schools that the increases are six percent and so, this increase instead of being twelve will be six, six, six percent. The schools have had increases over the years for not only undergraduate students who were in state and also out of state students, and it puts a tremendous burden on the institutions, but I also want to add that we're talking about a good university system. What makes a good university system is also the make up of its student body. Diversity adds to that. Students who come to North Carolina pay taxes while they're here. Many of them do as I did, they get educated and they stay and they remain and contribute to this economy. So I think that it will benefit our students who are from North Carolina to have students from other states, and I just believe that if we continue to increase this tuition, we're going to look up and everybody in our classrooms in higher education will be from North Carolina. Now that's not so bad, but I do think that diversity will add to their learning and will contribute to the contributions that they can make. And I would appreciate your support for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister Chair. The education appropriations chairs would ask the committee to pose the amendment. This amendment is directed at increases in tuition for non resident students, and the House budget is based on a recommendation that is contained in the Governor's budget, that we basically raise tuitions for one group of universities and, at six percent, and basically the larger universities at twelve point three percent. What the House did was rather than making that effective in the upcoming fiscal year, we moved it to the second year, in part because we felt that it was the university board's role most appropriately to take this into consideration. So we followed the governor's recommendation, but we were trying to be deferential to the university board. I would suggest to you that the tuitions for our public universities for non-resident students, if they want to address their debt situation, they might want to stay home and go to a university in their own state, if that's the major concern, but we ought to be pricing our tuitions for non-residents in a competitive fashion, and there's nothing to suggest here that we're not doing that. Again, I'd urge you to

against the amendment to the Shannon represented time and I and the human clay equation could attend a deal idea, you should they be given to the idea that this 112.5 and, if a few commission in the morning, with a cracked two?? (SPEAKER CHANGES) we're going home of believability that I'm the captain of the cold five and bars com what you're looking at our goal of the largest universities com in the emerging 15 com the chart: I'm is a love relationship had the two lead at the moment, a unit that going to try and fix that, he and in the 22 billion four two and a home that compromised if I don't know why the those words were left out of time bomb attack that can answer that, and the public, and that com the above rate on that with the governors com that would respect to give com and they did try and calm that what they were trying to do is put the bomb diversity that will have the largest population of nonresident time in that in a competitive situation com and a again this is not to something that if acted to make your mom and a legal IPO will import ago, headache and that will have an opportunity to participate in the two allegedly have two republics that may be a coma and the potential you'll have less than 80 years, leaving a longtime goal a gondola two goals being met, the report became too fat to crime commission and the big question for you at an apple pie in fact, time and had an epiphany mentioned that, and I tried out and buy that began as a condition that the back end today, by break up the paper stating they cannot have a question that allowed into the combined to thank you for thinking about it in there, and delighted that the dynamic by the default and I can't land and non-Christian rank-and liked it. Petitioned the non-commissioned MPAF-fund my time with my hand in the finish after the more complex groups in the back of our time is to make your question and they are: chairman gray can you tell us where North Carolina time caller from the state of mental state tuition will enable a time, and that you could set a good for the police said ballet of the Biondi, and that you're making back into contact with us while by the time and date in one of the people, and now that the second time, and then I think it would find two ,(SPEAKER CHANGES) PMA and that the times said Monday they can stay home and I can pay and adaptable it would give, but it had happened to him, and that will be Thang long alleged that the fiscal year that university and an Omnicom, the diversity that was needed to achieve a common goal in the data to one of the men then they can fry and we had combat-E, 85 and cannot be undone, home of an eight KFAA Clinton AM and two KM, which is the wide and, again people, died of getting out of a clean out the death of the one that I'm helping people could do I think the only then that we talked about com behind the North Carolina had them not to D, to the population, all told, by connecting them Monday at the time of Coles, if the north, AK-EIAAU, and if they all had that kind of money with a day of AOL whether they had a day of the pending,: 50-minute account of two reports to the top and enables the puppet they had had been planning the way and I would not have to give the port of ?? …………….

Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there further discussion, further debate? Seeing none, all those in favor of the amendment signify by saying, aye... All those opposed say no... The no’s have it. The amendment fails. Next up is ALM-34, version 5, amendment No. 52. Representative Richardson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, point of order please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma’am. Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does this violate the rules because it takes recurring money in the first two amendments, and them proposes to make them non-recurring expenditures all the way down? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the committee will remain at ease... Its in order. If it was in the reverse it would be out of order, so it is in order. Representative Richardson is recognized to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m over here, sir. Thank you Mr. Chairman. My amendment asks to amend the NER money report on page H2, item 9, by reducing the amount appropriated for that item for each fiscal year of the biennium by $500,000 recurring money. On line 4 and on page H5, item 15 by reducing the amount appropriated for that item for each fiscal year of the biennium by $500,000 recurring. Line 7, and on page H7, item 32 by reducing the amount appropriated for that item for the 2013-14 fiscal year by $500,00 non-recurring. Line 10, and on page H15 item 83 by reducing the amount of non-recurring funds appropriated for each fiscal year of the biennium by $2,155, 208. On page H14, item 68 by adding the following for that item for the 2013-14 fiscal year $1,903,090 non-recurring, and by adding the following sentence at the end of the description for that item, “Provides no recurring funds for the 2013-14 fiscal year.” On page H14 item 71 by adding the following for that item for the 2013-14 fiscal year $1,023,040 non-recurring by adding the following sentence at the end of the description for that item, “Provides non-recurring funds for the 2013-14 fiscal year.” On page H14, item 17 by adding the following for that item for the 2013-14 fiscal year $287,525 non-recurring by adding the following sentence at the end of the description for that item, “Provides non-recurring funds for the 2013-14 fiscal year.” On page H14, item 75 by adding the following for that item for the 2013-14 fiscal year $398,551 non-recurring and by adding the following sentence at the end of the description for that item, “Provides non-recurring funds for the 2013-14 fiscal year.” And the last one, on page H14, item 76, by adding the following for that item for the 2013-14 fiscal year of $43,002 non-recurring and by adding the following sentence at the end of the description for that item, “Provides non-recurring funds for the 2013-14 fiscal year.” I recommend approval of this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft, Representative West is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Representative Richardson’s trying to fix a problem that she sees, but what she’s trying to do: she’s taking money from tobacco trust fund, the clean water management, the non-commercial lust/g, and biotech, and for that reason I would ask you to oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion on the amendment, Representative Pierce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Chair, we try to work where we can with you. We appreciate all that we do. These organizations are very important, and we’re really disappointed that, first of all, that the Senate failed to provide any fundage to enable the minority in these organizations to work. They have a 20 year track record of doing great things in the state and at this fragile time in our economy to get rid of these organizations

Organizations would do more damage than we really can see. So during the past somebody made a statement that they were being phased out. But in due, just to make a point, we just reduced the fundings. I remember that. We never had the idea of just getting rid of these organizations. They have a great, they do a great job in the State of North Carolina. So I would ask that we would consider Representative Richardson’s amendment and see if we could work something out to help these organizations continue to stay alive. We talked about in, during this process through the transition period if nothing else. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to echo the sentiments expressed by Representative Pearson Richardson. These are very important programs in terms of economic development. And in particular the Land Loss Prevention Project has helped keep black farmers on their, on their farms and they’ve been. They faced historical discriminations. I don’t think, I don’t think that we ought to be cutting these people out cold turkey. I’m think that phasing them out is probably appropriate, but completely eliminating their funding is harsh move. So I urge you to support the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to speak in support of the amendment. And I still have to raise the question I raised earlier, why are we going into the budget? Why did this particular department, area go into the budget and slash all of the minority groups? You left one maybe. When you look at the total appropriations given to these organizations it's minuscule compared to this total budget. Well, I think it’s very unfair that we have targeted these organizations. If as has been stated there was a 5 year phase out, I think that the organizations should have been told that they were being phased out. I think the organizations did not ask for additional funding because they were sympathetic to the economic situation in our state. And we're talking about organizations that have had a tremendous economic impact on this state. When we talk about wanting to promote jobs and business growth, those kinds of things. That’s exactly what these organizations continue to do over two decades and more. They continue to do that. One in particular provides business assistance in the areas of marketing opportunities and provides the support for women and minority owned businesses. And I don’t know why we seem so afraid to support minority businesses. We’re talking about thousands of jobs that have been created. Millions in commercial development that have been provided. But when we talk about cutting these groups, you are also impacting the people who they impact in the community and those, and that means we’re going to lose more jobs. That means services that people are being provided for through these organizations won’t be provided for. We need to have some compassion around here. You’ve cut people from unemployment, they don’t have medical insurance. Now we say that we promote business and we want to improve the economy and we’re doing destructive kinds of things like this. I think, I think it’s pretty shameful for us to be doing it. We’re talking about tremendous job loss to low wealth neighborhoods. And I think we, we need to consider as we consider the richest in this state, we need to consider people who are struggling and people who are in low wealth communities. This is a good amendment. It’s a fair amendment. We’re talking about allowing these organizations to transition. We did that in the other area and in the other areas departments earlier today. Why not in this department as well? Why are not we providing an opportunity for these organizations to transition appropriately so that they can continue for at least a short time to do the work and make some provisions for the next year? And I would ask that you support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair and I’ll be very brief. One of things that North Carolina can be proud of is that nationally, we’re nationally known for our Minority Economic Development Package What, what you’ve done in this is that you’ve cut it out. We sat down, many of us sat down and thought about this and tried to get some way or other that we could.

Actually not phase it out. We know, for instance, that the Department of Congress is to changing up a little bit. Now, we also know what we are hoping to do is to go for a grant type of program. No money has been appropriated yet for it. We understand that. The Senate didn't do it, and the House hasn't done it yet. But we still hold out hope for it. And this will tide us over at least for a year in these organizations. So that if that program does come about, and we should know within a certain period of time. If that program does come about, this would allow those organizations to try to continue their funding through the grant situation. And as Representative Adams and others have said, we ought to be proud of what the minority economic development programs have done for this state in terms of providing jobs, in terms of providing infrastructure, and a lot of things that they have done. I can look at the Institute for Minority Economic Development, and recognize the fact that many state agencies have been able to take advantage of the expertise that's in that agency, that's in that institute, in order to form programs for this state. So I, all we ask is very simply that they be allowed and carry over at least for a year, in order, and number one, if we have to phase out, then that would be phasing them out, but hopefully that we would be able to get into the grant program that hopefully Congress is trying to do. We ask please that you support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I would urge you to oppose the amendment, primary for the reasons that Chairman West articulated. You can be for something, but then you've got to figure out where the money comes from. And in this case, you're taking the money from all of the wrong places. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund, Biotech, Tobacco Trust Fund, Clean Water Management Trust Fund. It may be a good cause, but the mistake here would be taking the funds from these line items, and I urge you to oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Farmer-Butterfield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to speak in favor of the amendment. When I look at East and North Carolina, and what has happened because of these programs, especially The Community Development Initiative and the Association of Community Development Corporations. In my district, I can see housing involving home ownership in my community that would not have occurred otherwise. I see apartments for citizens that would not have housing otherwise, I see senior citizens programs, incubator programs that have created jobs for people in my community. Even a shopping center was set up in my district. So, in downtown redevelopment, revitalization, and all of these created jobs. So those are some specific things that I've have seen in terms of outcomes in my communities because of these initiatives. So I ask that you support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Hall. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the Committee. I'd ask that you support this amendment, and there's several reasons why, and the final reason is it's good business for North Carolina. First of all, there's no dispute that the programs that we're seeking to fund work. They work, they've got a track record of having excellent success. No one has said their funding is being cut because they don't work or they aren't efficient or they don't produce the bests results. There's no viable substitute proposed in the budget to help fill in where these services will be lost throughout the community. Now, additionally, if we cut these programs without providing for transition, we leave those businesses and those opportunities that are being developed right now by these organizations to be cut adrift, and all of that investment lost, both private and public that have participated in it. The Department of Commerce, which seeks to fund these in the future, again recognizing their value, is not ready at this point, to provide those matching public, private, grants and partnership funds that they envisioned they'll do. Now, the technical assistance that they provide and the financial and capital management information assistance they provide is essential for small businesses. We know they're responsible for the majority of jobs that are created in this state.

create an environment for small business to thrive and then not provide the opportunity for the small businesses to have the support that they need; we'll have major areas of our state that don't get developed, both inner cities and rural areas so I'd ask you to support the amendment. It takes a little from other organizations that are also doing a fine job but allows us to capitalize on the investment we have already made in North Carolina through these organizations that have done a great job and again are recognized by the Department of Commerce for future funding but they don't have the funds necessary to operate during that gap time so we are asking to have a transition. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Michaux. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I apologize for speaking at the same time, Mr. Chairman, but I forgot to mention; what we are talking about in terms of dollars is about $3.6 million and when you look at it in the overall scope of things is just a really mere pittance and what it does, yes, it takes a little bit of money, half a million here and half a million there from programs that are really viable programs and doing a great job but I just don't think we can just flush what has been a tremendous asset to North Carolina down the drain, it just would not be, and I don't think you want that, things that we can be proud, we always want to uplift those and try to do the best we can for them and all we are asking in this situation is just for another year in order to phase out and be able to take advantage of some other programs that might come along. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? Representative Richardson. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think when we looked at the funds that we selected to pull money from, we saw that there were some supporting funds in there, for example, the Clean Water Trust fund, and there is not a number of how many people will be using the Non Commercial Leaking Underground Trust fund right off so I doubt you would expect that money to be absorbed within one year because I'm sure we don't have that many people so we did try to look at funds that were, had, like the special taxes or tags and deed stamps and things that had recurring funds so we did go after some money that was off limit and we went back and renegotiated so, thank you, we did not just go at this at random. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGE] All opposed say no. [SPEAKER CHANGE] No [SPEAKER CHANGE] The no's clearly have it and the amendment is not agreed to. Next amendment by Representative Speciale is AMK-27V1, AMK-27V1, Amendment 54 and Representative Speciale is recognized to explain his amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] This amendment makes a change, the small school system supplemental funding. There was a change in the formula which is going to cost some of these smaller schools some of their funding, however, that was in the Senate budget but there was another change made since we received it yesterday, I guess, in Committee that changed the criteria from counties that have 3200 students to 3900 students which added four counties and some funding was added but not enough, bottom line here is, some of these smaller counties are going to loose a lot of money because of this change, trying to add four more counties. $563,000 from Pamlico county, Pamlico county has about 1200 students; you can't take $563,000 from a county that they were depending on and expect them to be able survive, their school system. Basically what this does it puts it back to what was in the budget yesterday before that amendment. It changes the county size from 3900 students to 3200 students and removes those four additional counties. One of those four additional counties would have gotten, by the formula, would have gotten over $700,000 that the school system wasn't anticipating getting, but some of these other schools and some of your school systems are on here, Green County, Graham County, I've got a whole list here, they are going to be loosing a couple hundred thousand dollars

?? so I requested it that you folks for this amendment let’s put it back the way it was yesterday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The education appropriations chairs take no position on this amendment. The amendment would put the formula for how this allotment is done back to actually the way that we originally addressed it. But it's really sort of a policy question. I mean, thirty two hundred was a number that we look at all of the various districts and felt like that was the right number. The education Appropriations Committee had a motion to move that number up to thirty six hundred students and as my colleague has just stated what that does, the money doesn't change it simply changes the allocation within the block of money that's provided for the small, for the small county allotment, If any member is interested in knowing the difference between the two I have the charts right up here and you can come by and see what the difference between the two is but we don't take a position on this amendment one way the other its non- budget affecting in terms of the this no new money here. It’s just an allocation question [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady just for clarity, could you characterize the types of counties that would be receiving more additional funds and those that would be receiving less. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll see if I can quickly do that. Basically you’ve got counties between thirty two hundred and thirty six hundred would not be getting would not have gotten any monies under the earlier formula when you move it back, when you move up you’re including several counties that would not have otherwise gotten monies and I don’t want to pick on anybody but Chairman Weston I talked about this and he's got so many counties now he's affected both ways. I believe it was Graham County that does better under the formula when the number is thirty two hundred, but then Cherokee County does much better under the Formula when it’s at thirty six hundred. So it really varies from place to place. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Whitmire. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister chair, I've got these numbers and have researched them for many months now. In changing it from thirty two to thirty nine what the intent and what it did. First of all we go back to one September two thousand ten, when the General Assembly sanctioned study gave the recommendation in the template on which the house has in their budget, a new way of doing small school funding so that it recognizes a sliding scale and economies of scale and as you get a little larger but your still small in you suffer from a lack of economies of scale your rewarded appropriately for your smallest. Now here are a couple of issues that weigh in and I sympathize with Representative Speciale’s situation. The Senator ??? rather creative formula that is still in today’s small school funding that rewards you for square miles of water on which no one lives in varying degrees, has provided over many years. as much triple of what a normal student at any other school not receiving this fund would get, It is extremely skewed so changing it from thirty two hundred and thirty nine hundred you always have winners and losers, but in doing that it mitigated the extreme losses and the extreme gains that I don’t want to belabor, but I will say this, the ones who in the house formula that have water that's rewarded. they're going to be losers significantly regardless to different degrees but when you move over to all the other areas what you do is you dampen the ?? so that you end up producing and of course this may sound too good to be true nineteen winners out of twenty seven total, and if it is reduced to thirty two hundred, from where it is now, and Anson County will drop out very soon Ashe County is within four students of dropping out Greene county is within eighteen Martin County is with thirty five

And for those others that have been small but not small enough, or least they were small enough but their tax rate was too high it kills another 4. So I will simply say that there’s a lot more winners in this room than losers, with the 39. Someone wants to show the numbers one on one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was just trying to let you know that the counties who benefit when it goes to 39 are Cherokee county who would get no other small money at this point, Currituck county, Jackson County, and Transylvania county. And that it is written out as to exactly as to who it helps out and who it hurts. It also changes the per student amount from 1625 when it’s 3900 students to 2300 when it’s only 3200 students. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Elmore? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a question for staff. Prior to this change with this, going back to last fiscal year. What was the small school max number that you could have? Meaning, the number of students you could have in the system, what was the number there? To qualify for small school prior? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, care to respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Chris Nordstrom, fiscal research. The largest number of students you could have last year under the small county formulas was 4,080. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative West? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I guess there comes a time every once in a while in the legislature when you see a bill or an amendment before you that your really don’t like. Although this would help Cherokee county to the tune of about $735,000. I represent Graham and Clay county, two of the poorest counties in the state and they would actually lose money so being in that predicament I want to oppose the amendment and support the poorer counties. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further comment on the amendment? If not, Representative Speciale? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to make sure that last gentleman knew he needed to support the amendment if he’s trying to keep them counties from losing money. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s right. That’s right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I believe Representative West misspoke. His point, he would be, I think be supportive of this amendment based on the comments that Representative West made. Again remember there really are two things going on here. The Education Chairs change the formula itself based on study that had been done of the formula. Everybody recognized the original formula was way out of date and couldn’t even really remember why it was this way. All we’re arguing about here is where you draw the line. And it’s the same amount of money spread out over some number of schools, and there are winner schools systems and losers. Our judgment as chairs were that we wanted to keep the number lower because as a general matter that is going to favor the smallest counties, the smallest systems. And that’s why we took a shot a 3200. There’s no magic to it but I’ll be supporting the amendment offered with respect to this matter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose, no. The ayes have it and the amendment passes. Net amendment is offered by Representative Pierce ALD-34v3. ALD-3v3. Amendment 66B offered by Representative Piece. And I think we’re down to about the last 5 amendments so let’s see if we can have some, a lightning round maybe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I’m ready, Mr. Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pierce is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a $250,000 non-recurring for the Southeastern Ag. Center. You have a great piece of property down in Robeson county that this time last year we put a horse arena down. It’s been a great piece of property that the state.

taxpayers own, we own, the state owns. And this is just operating funds. It's not all that we need, but we're willing to do what we can to keep it moving and be quite sure that, when we get on the other side, that we can work it out. So, we ask for your support. I think the Chair's along with us, and thank you in advance. And I won't take the hour. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can we have clarity about where the money's coming from? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. It's coming from additional marketing funds on H1 Item 4 in the budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. We are fine with this. So is the Department of Agriculture. It's $250,000, and it's non-recurring. This will help them get over the hump. And they will be able to. This will be the last appropriations for that center. They will be self-sustaining after this appropriation. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. In no disrespect to the ?? committee by any means or any sort, this is my first term. But I do have an understanding of the past studies of this center, the history of it. And I think, in regard to the Gospels, this is viewed as Lazareth, where it keeps arising again and again from the dead. And I think there comes a time where we need to decide to cut the terms with it. And I would just ask everyone to not support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, debate on the amendment? Representative Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whichever seat is fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I did want to speak on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a facility in Robeson County that has great potential. The state has invested $4.7 million in that facility. We've just opened a multi-purpose center, which has been in operation less than two years. It's showing great potential. Not only that, it's showing great potential to the economy of Robeson County. And, for those reasons, I would ask the members to support Representative Pierce's amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Additional comments on the amendment? Seeing none. All in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying "Aye", all opposed, "No". If we'd have a show of hands. All in favor, please raise your hand. All those opposed, raise your hand. You can lower your hands. Thirty-three having voted in favor of the amendment. Excuse me. Thirty-nine having voted in favor of the amendment, and thirty-three against, the amendment is agreed to. Next amendment is offered by Representative Queen.

G-27V3. ALG-27, excuse me, 25V3. Amendment 56, offered by Representative Queen. Representative Queen is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, thank you. This concerns the funding for the North Carolina arts council. It is J1 in your money report. Earlier, Representative Cleveland had an amendment on item six, administration for the North Carolina arts council in J1. Our budget started out with a cut of a half a million dollars each year recurring to administration in item seven. We also have cuts to the grants program to 228 million each year in cuts. What I'm attempting to do with my amendment is sort of stem the hemorrhaging of our arts councils. The arts council supports the arts in all of our communities. The arts council helps with our economic development, particularly in the mountains and our small towns. It helps with building our infrastructure, collaborating, working with our communities to build our arts institutions from community theaters to local orchestras and courses, fairs, and street events. They do the music trails and craft trails, and lots of other things in the mountains. It's a very small amount of money in the state budget that has a huge effect, certainly in my district and I assume it does in yours. Just to give you a little background of why I'm concerned about this item, in 2008, we had over 10,500,000 state actual appropriations. In 2009, it went to 9,500,000. 2010, 8,300,000. In the last three years, we've cut 1.2 million additional from that, and three staff positions. My concern is, when we started we had a cut of a half a million dollars a year in each year of item six of administration. The arts council reported that would represent about eight staff members from their organization. What the Cleveland amendment did is take that 500,000 and make half of it department wide flexibility cuts, and left the other 250,000 as cuts directly from administration. What my amendment does is takes out that second 250,000 dollars of cuts from the administration, so they do take a department flexibility cut of 250,000, but it restores 250,000 back into their budget. Again, it's a very effective program. Now, where do we get the money? Where do we get this 250,000? It's hard to find the money in the general government sector, so I look as hard as I could. I tried not to step toes that I had stepped on earlier, so I've taken it from the auditor's office. The auditors, even if we take the previous amendment that Representative Fisher passed earlier with us where we restored the humanities council from the audit, we're still just cutting the audit office 2.7 per total. This is what we have cut in general government. Administration has had a 16 percent cut. General assembly has a 2.5 percent cut. The governor has had a 6.7 percent cut. Housing and finance agents, a 10.6 percent cut. Boards of election, a 29 percent cut. The state controller has had 1.9 percent.

Representative: … the secretary of state, 2.3% cut. For an average, I just say that to say that our average cut is 3.6%. So, a 2.7% is not a wide cut to the auditor’s office. I think it is a reasonable place to take the cut, to protect this very effective state wide program of the arts council. So I recommend your support of my amendment. Speaker: Representative Cleveland is recognized. Representative: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We do not support this. First of all, we are talking about the administration, not the arts council. The council, when it came to committee, was reduced well over a million dollars. We only gave them a 220,000 per year to buy in reduction. We did the best we could do for the arts council. The administration was given a 500,000 reduction and as I said earlier in a moment that I ran the closer resources came and asked to change that to a $250,000 to administration, and give them the other $250,000 as an across the department reduction, which we did. This leaves, right now with the $250,000 reduction, leave $1.3 million in the budget for the administration, which is sufficient for them to function. We are also doing a study of them as to what is actually going on there. To say that the auditor can afford the money is a humongous misnomer. The auditor, we tried to give some new positions, so she could get into the IT portions of the agencies, because of the problems we had in the IT portions. Due to money restrictions, we could not do that. The auditor, at this point, cannot afford a $250,000 reduction. Please vote no. Speaker: If members can speak briefly. I believe the two speakers have covered the points for and against. Representative Adams? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair, I will be brief. I do not know a lot about a lot of things, but I do know a lot about the arts. I also know that because these programs that are administered there, are administered for counties and cities all over this state, that they need people. As Representative Queen, has mentioned to you, the number of cuts they have sustained, which means that they have - their staff has been diminished, and, of course, you cannot administer programs and deliver the service without the people. They have been doing more for less over and over again. This is a good amendment and will help them to serve , in a more effective way, all the counties that you are representing. I would ask for your support for the amendment. Speaker: Representative Earl? Representative: Thank you Mr. Chair. You beat me to what I was going to suggest and request, that, given the hour, that we be brief with comments. Speaker: All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye [aye]. All those opposed, no [no]. The no’s have it and the amendment is not agreed to. The next amendment is offered by Representative Fairclothe ALG-27V2, amendment 36A, I think this is a replacement amendment, ALG-27V2. Representative Fairclothe is recognized to offer his amendment. Representative: Thank you Mr. Chairman. We did replace this in order to go back for a different source of funding. We have done that. I told you about the war memorial program, i.e. the field of honor. I will not repeat that, but speaking to the funding, this is a one time reduction in the office of the state controller, and I am told by the staff that is very workable. So I ask for your support. Speaker: Further discussion or debate on the amendment? Representative Cleveland? Representative: WE cannot support this amendment.

Although the war memorial is probably a worthy program, my county built their own war memorial and we paid for it. But that, as an aside, the department or the State comptroller cannot take a $350,000 reduction. They were given over a $1.2 million reduction from the Senate. I talked to the comptroller and he laid out what he needed as a minimum to function properly and not have to really degrade his programs and taking another $350,000 from them at this time would be detrimental to the State. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? All those in favor of the amendment offered by Representative Faircloth please signify by saying aye. All as opposed no. The no's have it and the amendment is not agreed to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Before we run our last two amendments, while we have been laboring in here, we are very pleased that, to announce to the group that Representative Bryan Brown and his lovely wife, Rachel, are now proud parents of a brand new baby girl born at 3:15 this afternoon while you were debating a bill, debating an amendment. Seven pounds, fifteen ounces, twenty inches long. [applause] All are doing well. Our next amendment is ALM-36 V5 offered by Representative Murry. ALM-36 V5, amendment 36, 63A. 63A offered by Representative Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ALM-36, version 5, is an amendment to allow for the Department of Commerce to establish a public/private partnership and engage in a, just gives them the permission to engage in a reorganization effort to help save money. Before we come back in short session, the Department of Commerce has to report back to the House on their progress and I would ask that, this is in the Governor's budget. We advanced the reporting date compared to the Governor's, the Governor's proposed budget and we removed the, they asked for $1 million to help make this happen. So we removed the money. This doesn't effect, this is just permission for the Department of Commerce to establish this public/private partnership and reorganize and realize operational savings. I'd move adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative West? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask Representative Murry a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Murry. Can you assure this committee that this is in no way an attempt to incorporate the Rural Center with the Department of Commerce? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative West, currently the Rural Center is not part of the Department of Commerce and this amendment just deals with reorganization of the existing department of commerce and so this in no way seeks to impact the operations of the Rural Center. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You said currently. Is it in the picture somewhere down the road to do that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, sir. If anything there could be a better relationship between the Department of Commerce and the Rural Center, but this in no way seeks to seize operation. I think that issue has been addressed in the budget with the complete funding in the House budget of the Rural Center and I think that's the will of this body and I think we were trying to operate within that context. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dobson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] One quick question for Representative Murry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Represent... [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If there was to be a plan that may or may not reorganize the Rural Center or put it under the Department of Commerce, would that proposal have to come before the General Assembly before that took place? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. If any plan, anything that would have that impact would definitely be something that would require legislative action. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further comment? Further debate? If not, all those in favor of the amendment please signify by saying aye, all opposed no. The ayes have it and the amendment is agreed to. Next amendment is ALL-48 V4, offered by Representative Boles. I think this is amendment 16.

Times time , AOL bush 48 days left in the bowels is recognized as a lobbyist of the demand of a long day of the 298-3132 for a long time and Linda van clef and the own time dollars and an increase of a benefit, North Carolina National Guard pension fund from one of the time dollars for the first 20 years of flowers and $9.00 and the two Kendall time for each additional year for the fish will allow the day maximum benefit from one time dollars $200 long day of time you require contribution to the required occupation and defend 3111 violation timecard each village seven millionaire for the new law requiring the creation time that the agenda when the latest chairman I have a politician them and the time the Nationwide attention on the test that 70% of it from $38,000,000 for a time to fund?? (SPEAKER CHANGES)an idea that they above- the donated-funded to give access plan to take any more time and although that's a nice idea , that would guess that we're not going to be a time that the plan that would impact of the funding over the next 10 years that everyone here is that your lawn mowers and a handful of that what happened to the time compensation under volunteer part of the plan was a little luckier than until help the patient time ever had gone by , I felt like a known person that's the attitude-Cal and undid to begin when or where time to come to the left engine and an input was wonderfully, of the dead of a four-hour days prior to the polls by record time to time in life and the school research division eight funding for the Clinton plan comes from the old one and B are undeniable that represented Cleveland mentioned are correct and 70% under the $38,000,000 unfunded liability time, (SPEAKER CHANGES) and the a-day event for the publishing of Dole's pledge time is here that the cabinet members of the two that include time, and that's the kitchen and if we do have one other piece of very important business to fly to do not mean that year's time, though, we do have a matter of the via the bill Koresh, Woodall, high-pitched, the Shannon Johnson: a warm ocean hand, they get to the FTADLY 2 M and the paper reported Monday that time to deliver meals are the kinds of that and you can EFT like you and then they end of the FAA technical prevention and the underdeveloped I'm Neal and report back and two actual AM in the furthest passion for the day weekend when that you cannot see archived time via the bill would catapult that the country to plan that would the bill will be encouraged to buy and the ??.....

Bill will be financed tomorrow morning at 8:30. And should be on the floor tomorrow at noon,Four action and well for the full house. Any questions or comments Further discussion further debate? If not all those in favor of the motion put forward by Chairman Johnson on the budget and a House Committee substitute for senate bill 402 as amended. Please signify by saying i Oppose no The eyes clearly have it the eyes have it. The motion is agreed to I think you very much and please thank the staff.