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 4, 2014 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

[SPEAKER CHANGES]The House will come to order. Members please take your seats, visitors please retire from the Chamber. Members and visitors in the gallery, please silence all cellular phones and personal electronic devices. ??? be offered by Representative Shrishcotham, members and visitors in the gallery please stand and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Let us pray. Almighty God, you are present in all things in moments of darkness you are present. In moments of glory, you are present. The moments of joy that we experience is because you are with us. God, we stand before you today, in your presence, to praise you , and to say "Thank you". Sometimes in the chaos in the general assembly we may forget that you are here.Forgive us Lord. Life in the legislature can overwhelm us. Help us to remember that your grace is there to pick us up. For your presence, your mercy, and your love is everlasting. Father, remind us of your awesome majesty that surrounds us. In closing, Father God, we thank you for the strength, the mercy, and the love you bestow upon us. Help us to listen to your voice, to feel your presence, to trust your word, and to serve your people. In your name we pray, amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore is recognized [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.Speaker the journal for Tuesday June the third 2014 has been examined and found to be correct move's approval is written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the journal for June the third be approved as written. All in favor say Aye. All opposed No. The Aye's have it. The journal's approved as written. Members please take your seats. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, as many of you know, the FFA is one our nations premier youth leadership development organizations focusing on developing student's potential for premier leadership, personal growth, and career success. It is my hope that you will be impressed by the presentation you are about to hear as I am every time I hear it. Please give your reverence and attention to the winner of the state wide FFA creed Ms. Nicky Lacklier from Robson County. Nicky, please approach the podium, and present the creed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The FFA creed by Ian Tiffany. I believe in the future of Agriculture with a faith born not of words, bit of deeds. Achievements won by the present and past generations of agriculturalists in the promise of better days through better ways. Even as the better things we now enjoy have to come to us through the struggles of former years. I believe to live and work on a good farm, or to be engaged in

Other agricultural pursuits is pleasant as well as challenging. For I know the joys and discomforts of agricultural life and hold an inborn fondness for those associations which even in hours of discouragement, I cannot deny. I believe in leadership from ourselves and respect from others. I believe in my own ability to work efficiently and think clearly with such knowledge and skill as I can secure. And in the ability of progressive agriculturalists to serve our own and the public interest in producing and marketing the product of our toil. I believe in less dependence on begging and more power in bargaining. In the life abundant and enough honest wealth to help make it so for others as well as myself. In less need for charity and more of it when needed. In being happy myself, and playing square with those whose happiness depends upon me. I believe that American agriculture can and will hold true to the best traditions of our national life. And that I can exert and influence in my home and community which will stand solid for my part in that inspiring task. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I think you can see that Nicky is a good example of what agricultural education and the Future Farmers of America can do for our young people. Those accompanying her in the gallery today include her mother, Ms. Bridget Massaid, her step-father, Kalee Massaid, Josh Starling and Horace Johnson who both work with young people like Nicky all over the state, and the state FFA officer team Carmen Honeycutt, great-niece of JH Langdon a former education teacher and FFA advisor, Miranda Bergland, Hailey Lore, Danielle Blake, Bradley Glover, ??. Nicky is from Representative Ken Waddell's district. Interestingly, Mr. Waddell was an agricultural education teacher at East Columbus High School before coming to the General Assembly. I heard this created a meeting over the course of the, or heard a young lady deliver it and I said I think that's something we should probably bring to the house and remind everybody about the good work and the future of agriculture in North Carolina. I think in my opinion and I hope in yours is in great hands. But before we go further, we may have the guests I just listed please stand and let us welcome you. Representative Waddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, I think you've seen today exactly what is good about public education in North Carolina. It does my heart good, I taught these students and listed many creeds and many speeches in my career as a school teacher. What other example of leadership skills could you imagine being better than being able to stand in front of 120 members of the house and give this rendition of the FFA creed? Outstanding work, and outstanding commend the young lady that said this creed. She said it last year in the agriculture committee. And she really didn't know whether she was going to win the state contest or not but did, and I think went off to national convention and finished sixth. Once again, this is one good example of many in our public schools of how well they are providing these opportunities for those folks to get out and be all we want them to be sooner or later which is be responsible citizens of North Carolina. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to a number of municipal officials

and others from the business community who have come to the legislature today for the municipalities' town hall day. I'm told there are some 500 people here representing our villages, towns, cities, big and small, who are members of the league including a few friends of mine from Mecklenburg County. If you're a part of that group please stand and let us welcome you. [APPLAUSE] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion pertaining to today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, move that House Bill 230, short title-Clarify Read to Achieve, be removed from today's calendar and calendered for tomorrow, June the 5th. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without exception so ordered. Should have said objection, by the way. Ladies and gentleman, I'd like to welcome the Nurse of the Day. The Nurse of the Day is Lisa Elliott from Sanford. Lisa, thank you for serving the chamber. Ladies and gentleman of the House, let's show our welcome, our thanks. [APPLAUSE] Introduction of bills and resolutions. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Joint Resolution 1255, Representative R. Brawley, Point of Sale Background Checks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules, calendar, operations of the House. Representatives Jordan and McGrady are recognized to send forth committee reports. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan and McGrady for judiciary of subcommittee B, House Bill 1076, Reduce Hard Copies Appellate Division Reports. Favorable is the committee substitute unfavorable is to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute calendar, original bill unfavorable, calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1087, Preserve Biological Evidence Study, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1095, Remove Testimony by Analysis. Favorable and re-referred to Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be re-referred to the committee on Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1092, Enforced Payment of Criminal Mediation Fee. Favorable is to the committee substitute, unfavorable is to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute, calendar. Original bill unfavorable, calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 101-GSC, Technical Corrections 2013, Favorable to the House Committee Substitute, unfavorable to the Senate Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Committee Substitute will be re-referred to the committee on commerce. Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable, calendar. Representative Collins is recognized to send forth committee report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins for the State Personnel Committee, House Bill 1194, Retirement Administration Changes Act of 2014. Referred to Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is referred to Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1195, Fiscal Integrity Pension Spiking Prevention. Referred to Appropriations, Favorable and re-referred to Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1195 will be re-referred to the committee on appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Bill 1193, Retirement Technical Corrections Act of 2014. Favorable as to Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to original bill and re-referred to Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Committee Substitute will be re-referred to the committee on appropriations. Original bill, unfavorable calendar. Representative Stevens is recognized to send forth committee report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens to the judiciary subcommittee C, House Bill 1203, Private Hospital Toxicology Fee. Favorable and re-referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1059, Take Venus Flytrap Crime New Hanover County. Favorable as to the Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to the original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute, calendar. Original bill, unfavorable calendar. Representatives Howard, Brawley, Lewis, Setzer are recognized to send forth committee reports. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Brawley, Lewis, and Setzer for Finance Committee. House Bill 1067, Murphy De-Annexation. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1080, ?? De-Annexation. Favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1201, Exemption Admission and Agriculture Fares, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1069, Unemployment Insurance Law Changes. Favorable as to the Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to the original bill and so referred to Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute referred Rules, Calendar, Operations of the House. Original bill, unfavorable calendar.

Ladies and Gentleman, upon the motion of Representative Elmore from Wilkes county, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to VFW Post 1142. Welcome. Please stand and let us properly welcome you. Members, upon the motion of Representative Larry Pittman from Cabarrus county and Representative Chris Whitmire from Henderson, Polk, and Translyvania. The Chair would like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Ann Arp, wife of Representative Arp, Carmen Madry with Concerned Women for America of North Carolina who are both present in the gallery today. If you all would please rise so we can recognize you. On motion of the member from Craven county, Representatives Speciale, the Chair's happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Jerry Schill and members of the Coastal Carolina Taxpayer's Association. If you all would please stand so we could welcome you to the House chamber. And on motion of the member of Caldwell county, Representative Starnes, the Chair's happy to extend the courtesies of the floor to former Representative George Robison, who is currently serving as the mayor of the village of Cedar Rock. Representative Robison, welcome to the House, sir. Counter, House Bill 1025. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Made exception for House Bill 1025, a bill to be entitled an act to authorize continuances of division of motor vehicles inspection station violation cases, provide that agriculture, tourism signs on state highways are subject to Department of Transportation location placement rules, change the due date for the North Carolina turnpike authority annual audit report to October, repeal a requirement that the Department of Transportation annually report right turn on red pedestrian crashes, amend the state driver's license material technical standards, apply alternate prioritization of criteria under the Strategic Transportation Investment Act formula to federal and state funds used for emergency repair work, reenact the authorization for the Department of Transportation to participate in private developer contracts for improvements to the state highway system subject to a limit of the lesser of 10% or $250,000 is recommended by the Joint Legislature Transportation Oversight Committee and to authorize the Department of Transportation to install and operate ramp meters and to provide that the violation of a ramp meter signal is an infraction. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Members, on motion of Representative Hastings and myself, the Chair would like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to two city council members from King's Mountain, Keith Miller and Curtis Pressley. If you all could please stand so we could welcome you also. For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Debate the Bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Before I begin can I ask, point of inquiry? There is an amendment floating out there. Would it be proper to address an amendment prior to? [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Torbett moves to amend the bill on page 4, line 4 by added a quote at the end of that line and on page 4, line 16 by deleting 9 and substituting 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman from Gaston has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As just noted by the reading clerk of the simply typographical changes

Would move for passage of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is Amendment One to House Bill 1025 House Committee Substitute. So many as favor the adoption of the amendment, please vote aye. Those opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. We’ll give members time to get to their seats. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 413 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. The amendment is agreed to. For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Gill rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I never saw the amendment on our screen. Was there a problem? And I didn’t vote because I didn’t know what I was voting on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Gill, the lady is correct. There was apparently an error on the dashboard, and so the amendment was not before, we would be glad to take a motion from the Representative, if the lady would like a revote, we can take a motion to reconsider, if the House would like. I think it was a technical amendment, however. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, may I have permission to vote yes on that amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as having voted aye. For what purposes does the lady from Franklin, Representative Richardson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I rise also to be recorded as being yes on that amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as having voted aye. For what purposes does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To inevitably speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you ladies and gentlemen of the House. We’re going to get through this as fast as humanly possible. I’ll give you a brief description of one bill that is a compilation of a myriad of bills that passed through the joint legislative transportation oversight committee. Section one, which was original House Bill 1025. This section amends the safety and emissions inspection laws provided that DMV may grant a continuance for an inspection station, related license violation hearing. Under current law, if a violation hearing is requested, DMV must hold the hearing within 30 days. Again, it provides a continuance. Section two, which is also House Bill 1071. The section amends current law governing agri-tourism signs to require the Department of Agriculture to work with DOT on placement of agri-tourism signs. Removes one-mile limit on placement and it still requires agri-tourism sign placement to follow DOT tourist and local sign rules which allows placement up to five miles from agri-tourism sites. Section three, otherwise known as House Bill 1072. This section changes the due date for the North Carolina turnpike authority annual audit report. Current law requires the report to be submitted promptly following the close of the fiscal year. This bill changes the due date, an actual due date to October. Section four, previously House Bill 1073. This section repeals the requirement in current law that DOT annual report to the joint legislative transportation oversight committee on right turn on red light crashes including crashes involving pedestrians and persons with disabilities. Once again it repeals that study. Section five, formerly known as House Bill 1122, this section changes the material technical standards for state driver license to eliminate a requirement for use of polycarbonate material. Instead requiring use of materials that is measured by energy standards of security and durability and is resistant to both tampering and reproduction. Section six, previously known as House Bill 1125. This section amends the strategic transportation investment act of 2013, House Bill 817, Session Law 2013-183 to provide that two types of funds obligated to support of emergency repair work will be subject to alternative prioritization criteria under the act. One, federal or state funds obligated for repairs for which federal emergency relief funds are available. Two, state funds obligated for repair to damage

As a result of an event that is lawfully declared to be a federal or state emergency. Section 7, which incorporates part of the amendment we just passed, was formerly House Bill 1126. This section reenacts a 2009 law that authorized DOT to participate in limited circumstances in private developer contracts for state highway system engineering design or construction of improvements. The department’s participation under this act is limited to the lesser of 10% of the contract or $250,000. DOT is required to annually report, no later than March 1, to the Joint Legislature Commission on Governmental Operations and the Joint Legislature Transportation Oversight Committee on all agreements entered into between the department and a private developer for participation in private engineering and construction contracts under this bill draft. The authorization provided by this bill draft would expire December 31, 2016. Section 8. Effective date accepted otherwise. Noted provided the bill becomes effective when it becomes law. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I support the bill and hope everyone will, as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Torbett, when we went to the introduction of ramp meters, it’ll be in our traffic patterns now, was there any study that was done on getting people used to them, or any problems that we may incur with that kind of a change and people knowing how to use it. We had recent issues with roundabouts. I’m just concerned. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. As you know, or may not know, that they are used in other states. As far as actual training for drivers, I don’t know that there will be any. But the application of them will be self-explained because they are just, they’re like red lights, but they are not red lights. They are more of a gauging system to make your entrance ramps safer as you merge into your most busiest times of the days on some interstates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess my question is not so much when the light’s red or when it’s dark. It’s when it’s green and they just scoot out. They still have to understand that they’re under the driving etiquette of looking to see before you just realize the green lights let you go without following the look over your shoulder rule. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re absolutely correct. And my hope is that, if I understand, the light is more to the entrance as opposed to where you actually access your highway. So it is, you still have merging time, if that makes sense. It’s not a stop here, go here, stop here, go here. It’s a stop from that, but then you still have ample area to merge after that. So, you would have to look and see for oncoming cars. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Last follow-up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Is there a consideration for the length of the merge lanes? Because some in the area, I know here in Raleigh, are short compared to others. Is there any kind of a requirement that it has to be a certain length to be safe? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wish I had an answer. I don’t know specific like foot or dimension requirement for that application. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To assist with the last answer, if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ramp meter section was added by amendment in committee. And what this does is actually just make the ramp meter violation of the red light an infraction instead of a the same as a intersection red light. And roughly, to answer the question about how far, I saw a video about this and it appears at about half way up the ramp, or maybe two thirds, in that area. And they still have plenty of car lengths to merge once they’re given permission to move on down the ramp. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I would ask that this bill be displaced for a short period while I have an amendment made. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, is the gentleman willing to temporarily displace the bill while the amendment’s being prepared? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I’ll await to see what language of the amendment is, yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill will be temporarily displaced. House Bill 1026, the clerk

Will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House Bill 1026 ?? entitled an act to update state law governing department of transportation oversight of safety and rail fixed guide way public transportation systems. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett please your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the house. House Bill 1026 is a MAP21 update, rail safety type of bill that has also come out of the joint legislative ?? oversight committee. [COUGH] Excuse me. And what this bill does, it complies with the new requirements of the moving ahead for progress in the 21st century act, or otherwise known as MAP21. It also gives NCDOT the enforcement authority required to implement the requirements of MAP21. Let me also address your attention to penalties for non-compliance if we do not act on this. If NCDOT does not take specific action to comply with the requirements of MAP21 as determined on the FDA, the USDOT secretary may withhold not more than 5% of the amount required to be appropriated for use in a state or urbanized area in the state under section 5307 until the SSO program has been certified as compliant with MAP21. Alternatively the secretary may require the fix gap ?? rail transit systems under the state's SSO program provide up to 100% of federal assistance made available under MAP21. Only for safety related improvements on such systems until the SSO program has been certified as compliant. I recommend this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to House Bill 1026 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 117 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The house committee substitute to House Bill 1026 has passed its second reading without objection. Will read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1026 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The house committee substitute to House Bill 1026 has passed its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 1028. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1028 ?? directed addition of motor vehicles to issue a single annual registration renewal sticker for each vehicle registration plate, as recommended by the joint legislative transportation oversight committee. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house. House Bill 1028 single license plate renewal sticker. As you are aware now when you purchase a license plate you have a sticker on the top left and you purchase annually a sticker for the top right. Guess what. This is going to be more efficient. Improves efficiency in sales and saves the DMV roughly $75,025. The statute allows for only one sticker but the administrative code calls for two registration stickers. Thus, we need to mandate one sticker in order to remove the authority from the administrative code provision and allow it to be repealed. And I commend this to you and hope you will support it. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1028 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record please do so at this time. Representative Holley, Representative Baumgardner. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 118 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. House Bill 1028 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1028 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1028 has passed its third reading. The bill will be sent to the senate. House Bill 1061, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House Bill 1061 ?? entitlement act to exercise North Carolina's constitutional authority to replace Common Core and establish, promote and assure high academic standards that are robust and appropriate

For North Carolina public education. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, before I allow debate on this bill, assuming there will be some debate, the Chair would like to extend two final courtesies. The Chair upon motion of Representative Catlin, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to New Hanover County commissioner Beth Dawson and her husband EMC member Dan Dawson. Beth and Dan, please stand and let us welcome you. Also upon motion of the gentleman from Onslo, Representative Shepherd, the Chair is happy to extend courtesies of the gallery to a friend and constituents from Richland, Ward Sylvester, and his son John. Please stand and let us welcome you. Representative Holloway please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the body. We’re here to talk about an issue that I’m sure we’ve heard about from our constituents and that issue is Common Core. The bill before you today was in the house education committee yesterday. We had a very vigorous debate. I believe a very thorough debate, and even though maybe concerns were not met, I do believe that they were addressed. What does the bill do? It seeks out to replace Common Core which are standards for our schools and it seeks out to replace them in a very responsible way. The state board of education next year will do a five-year review of standards. They do this every year. They do it on their own accord. And what we as the legislature are saying is we would like for you to look at replacing Common Core and considering higher standards. Are we taking any authority away from the state board? The answer is no. The state board picks curriculums, or they help write curriculums, and they pick the standards for which those curriculums are choreographed or designed. This bill does not in any way leave us without standards. There was some concern yesterday that we would be left without standards in our school system. In no way does it do that, because it allows us to continue operating under the standards we have now. The state board will do a five year review even if we did nothing. They will make changes and we again are encouraging them to look at other standards other than Common Core and we hope they will pick the highest possible standards that they can select. Can they keep parts of Common Core that they think are appropriate for our schools? Yes, they can. But, we want them to replace Common Core and we want to see a new face in standards and we want to see again higher standards than what we have today and standards that are more appropriate for our students. Mr. Speaker, that’s pretty much what the bill does. The only other thing that I can say is that it does create an advisory commission and the advisory commission has no rule-making authority. Again, we are not trumping the state board. They will be given advice to the state board as to how the standards should look, and that helps keep us as a legislature in the loop. Because we sometimes get the blame for things that we do or didn’t do, and it just helps us to stay a part of our standards and our school system and stay in touch with that. Mr. Speaker, I’ll be happy to take any questions. I think Representative Horne would like to speak and I do have an amendment that maybe after we recognize Representative Horne that I’d like to run before we get into the debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horne is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to take just a minute to point out some fundamental things about this bill. As you know, this came out as a PCS from the study committee on Common Core. Some of us felt that that report out of the Common Core committee left some uncertainty, some question, what’s going on.

are we going to have standards are we going backwards, sideways? What are we doing? This PCS, which was written in cooperation with a great number of folks we talked to, the business community, the education community, parents, teachers, principals, got to the point where, I know it's hard to believe, but I talked myself. The purpose of this, the purpose behind here, the fundamental purpose here is to add stability to how we're going forward, to how standards are implemented in this state. To add certainty so that the teachers, the parents, and the kids know what to expect next week and next year and to emphasize that it is the responsibility of the state of North Carolina to create, establish, promote, promulgate standards in this state. As you all know the Constitution of the United States is silent on the issue of education but our Constitution is not. As you all know, the Federal Constitution, in Amendment 10, clearly states that anything that's not, any power that's not given to the Federal Government is reserved for the states and, therefore, to the people. Our Constitution is clear that education is our responsibility, period. Not sorta, kinda, period. So, just a couple of things to address. The fundamental, the biggest concern I hear as I talk to folks on both sides of this issue and whether they're educators or parents is are we going backwards? Is this an attempt to throw out our standards and go backwards to standards that, pretty much everyone agrees, were not so good? I heard that time and again, that our North Carolina standards in public education need to be raised. Well, it says in the "whereas's" that it is the desire of this state to have academic standards among the highest in the nation. It says on page 2, line 15, that we are to ensure these standards are among the highest in the nation. And it says on page 6, the last page, that the standard course of study that we have today, the standard course of study that our teachers, to which our teachers are teaching, the standard course of study the kids are learning, the standard course of study that people agree, "these are pretty good so far," they stay in place. But this says we can do better and we can do it better on our own than have someone else thrust those standards upon us. Now I, I don't know if you all got this from the NCAE and I think that they make some very good points in their key findings. They tell you that teachers want to be consulted and involved in the implementation and this bill insists that teachers are consulted and involved in the implementation. This says teachers in North Carolina are concerned that Common Core state standards that we currently have will put increased emphasis on standardized tests. We want to emphasize the fact that teachers need to be allowed to teach. It points out that the members, teaching members of NCAE want more rigorous standards because they believe the standards will help students develop better critical thinking and problem solving. We agree. We want better standards. We want our standards. We are telling this commission to be established, we're telling the state board we want our standards among the highest in the United States. We must compete. We must compete with each other right here. We must compete with the other states. We must compete with other nations. Everyone business in this state, pretty much, ??? go anywhere and get their students, they'll get their new hires. We want our students, we know that our students are the best there are to have and that's why I urge you to support this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway moves to amend the bill on page 5, line 4 by rewriting the line to read: [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the body, this is a technical amendment recommended to us by staff. It just simply takes the appropriation out of the bill. Those funds will be reflected in the budget and so we do not need that in the bill and so this is just simply a technical amendment that removes those funds. But again, those

dollars will be reflected in the budget. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the amendment sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] In line 4, do we have a new word or a misspelling? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do not actually have a copy of the bill in front of me, Representative Avila, so you'll have to tell me. Let me look right here, my- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, it is not a new word and it is a typo that can be corrected by the clerk staff. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So, and we can fix that. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the sponsor of the amendment a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, on line 8 you say the commission's budget to the extent that funds are available. As I understand it, where are the funds and what are the funds that are going to be used to do this? What funds, to what extent are funds available and where are they coming from? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, the funds, they will be made available in the budget and I know you know from your time as being a full appropriations chair or senior appropriations chair, we've got the money and we will put it in there and the funds that are reflected in the bill, I think it was $75,000, we certainly have the funds to do that. I believe our friends across in the Senate, I think they're asking for a little bit more and all that can be worked out but we certainly, we do have the funds and again, this came as a recommendation by staff and we were just taking their recommendation and said that we needed to pull this money out of it and word it this way. So this isn't necessarily my doing. I'm just taking the folks who are really smart in this place and taking their suggestion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just a follow-up. It may not be much money involved but it still reflects the budget and I'm just, I know that there are ways that you can find things but what concerns me is the fact that this is a major program, a major commission that you're setting up and there outta be some dedicated funds in there rather than trying to fish around for them. I would hope that you would go back to what you already had in there originally. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the amendment sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just need a little clarification. It seems to me the way this is worded, it's a little confusing 'cause it looks like to me it's saying we're not going to appropriate funds for it because affected only funds are appropriated so, I don't know. I'm a little uncomfortable with the wording not with what I think you are trying to accomplish, so I'm just trying to figure it out, how we're gonna appropriate something if we're not gonna appropriate it, that's all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, again, this is nothing clever, this is nothing tricky, this is just coming from staff. I've seen this done before in the years that I've been here. Again, if the bill, if something were to happen and the bill didn't pass obviously we wouldn't need it but I'm confident that things will work out and it will pass and the money will be in the budget, I can assure you that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Holloway to the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1061. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 116 having voted in the affirmative, 2 in the negative. The amendment passes. We're back on the bill. Representative Cotham, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members. It's hard to get up and oppose my good friend and fellow educator Representative Holloway on this bill but there are some things that I would like to point out and some things that I hope that we can reflect upon. I have been involved in the Common Core issue for over four years as a legislator and have really looked at this issue from all different angles and I know that some of you have heard a lot about it from constituents, some things that are accurate, some not so much. I've had the privilege, thanks to oiur Speaker, of

... serving on the interim committee. We’ve had really good discussions, we’ve had experts come in. We solved some problems and some areas of concern, and things that I had hoped as a committee we would adjust and modify, and I think some of that is going to happen. I do think that. I think the goal that we all have and I think the business community has, as you can see based on what’s on your desk, is we all want very rigorous standards for our students, and that that is important, and we know the correlation between education and the economic engine that drives our state. But there are some issues that I think still hang out there that I hope will be solved in the next few weeks. 45 states have signed on to common core. I think that sends a signal that maybe things aren’t as terrible, but maybe not. Guess it depends on your perspective. There have certainly been problems with implementation, from North Carolina to around the country. I think that would be remiss to say it’s been perfect. I think the direction where we’re trying to go now is going to make us relive out that concern with implementation, because we don’t seem to know exactly where we’re going, and so my concern from an educator’s perspective and parents and thinking about children, because they’re our ultimate customer here: Are we leaving them in a state of flux? Do we really know what is going to happen, and what message will this send to our teachers? I’m thinking about our school systems because if they don’t know the exact curriculum that may be developed or may not, that puts a halt on passage of their budget, of textbooks they may purchase, professional development they may need. So those are just some of the big issues that do concern me. I’m also worried about an end date with this commission that’s created, and so I hope that those of you who are going to be on the conference committee with the Senate will think about some of these issues and see if we can make some adjustments, because I know none of us want to put forward policy that’s going to make our teachers more anxious or make us get thousands of nasty emails holding all of us responsible for legislation, because I do worry that some of the language in here is problematic, although some of the intentions may be good. Do I do ask you to consider that, but for those reasons, I cannot support this bill today. I will have to oppose it, and I do hope some adjustments can be made in the Senate and that we can all agree for rigorous standards for our students and a plan for everyone. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate the comments of my colleague Representative Cotham. We both served on the common core committee and we both were excited about serving on it because we too have received lots of emails and lots of letters from our constituents like you have. My disappointment in the committee when I was in the committee was that we were tackling an issue that does not have anything to do with common core, and we’re still here today having a conversation that has absolutely nothing to do with the issues of common core. We have professional development implementation that we’re still going to have to deal with no matter what kind of standards that you’re dealing with. We have children with special needs that need to be protected in these things that we still deal with and still would have to be dealt with no matter what we do today. The problem… what I want people to understand is that at some point in this body, we have to understand that education cannot be political rhetoric all the time because the only thing that happens is our kids that end up suffering the most. We are using this bill – and we’re going to call it what it is. We are using this bill to appease about 20 percent of the population that’s very upset about something that’s just misconstrued. This bill was about indoctrination, Obama, we want to do a repeal and replace, and we have to be very careful because we tried to do that with Obamacare – we were going to do repeal and replace…

and we still have a fiasco in this state of how we're dealing with that 'cause we never did replace. And I'm very nervous of, I'm very, very nervous about how we're going to be able to deal with this because of the example I had before and now we are setting another tone where we're going to replace a policy, or we're gonna get rid of a policy and we don't have another policy. And anybody can get up and tell you that we're not lowering standards but that's simply not the case. You will lower standards if you don't have any other standards. It's just the way it is. And we can get out there and talk about the talking points all we want to but the fact remains and the fact is if you don't have standards you are lowering them, fact. So, now we have to go to our constituents and to our teachers and to our parents and let them know we don't know when we're gonna have new standards. We might have them next year, we might have them two years from now, we might have them three years from now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would the gentleman yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Absolutely. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, I certainly do respect your opinion and forgive me, I do hate to stand up and interrupt someone while they're speaking. I think it's the first time I've done this in ten years. But you said we will not have standards. What in the bill makes you think that there will be a void where there will be no standards as this process moves forward? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The portion in the bill where you say that we're not spending any more money on it and that we are directing our commission to say we're not gon-, what teacher, I will redirect the question back to you, what teacher that you know, in their right mind, will continue to use the standards of Common Core when they get the memo saying we're not using the Common Core? [SPEAKER CHANGES] One follow-up, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I understand you say that we're not spending money but do you understand that that means that we do not want the school board to be purchasing tests and things like that that go along with Common Core? That most of what we need for Common Core is in place and just because you're not spending money on something doesn't mean that the standards are eliminated. The standards are there, they're in place. The curriculum has already been written to go along with those standards and to say that we will be operating with no standards is a little bit of an exaggeration. I understand we're not going to be spending money but I just want to make sure you understand that does not mean that we have a moratorium on standards and we're operating with no standards at all. I just want to make sure you understand that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I totally understand that but I also understand what happens when you tell someone that you're not going to do something anymore. So if I'm a teacher I'm gonna take all the Common Core standards that I have and I'm going to put them with all the other initiatives that this body has brought before us over the 20-30 years and is just another one. We're gonna have another one. And that's another part of this. They just started this and we're gonna come and get it, "oh, those of us know better than you and so we're gonna do this again and we're gonna bring you new standards." And the bigger problem that I have is what Representative Horn talked about. We are walking around like we're big, bad North Carolina that has done this better than anybody else when, in quire the contrary, we have no statistical evidence or base or anything that says that we should be arrogant enough to say that standards are not good enough and we're gonna do it ourselves. For all the existence of this country, every single test score, everything that we measure upon, we cannot say that. Maybe Connecticut or Massachusetts might be able to say that, who continues to rank high, but North Carolina to say, "oh, we're gonna do this." I think that's a little stretch to believe that we have the credibility to say that we are gonna have higher standards. We still don't know what the standards are going to look like. Other states have tried to do this. And one of the things I don't like about this is that and then we come today and say we're not gonna have, we don't know the appropriations now. We don't know. Folks, this is a very expensive operation. I think, look at how much Indiana spent on this. Somebody's gonna elude to this later but this is an expensive operation. We're going to do things that the federal government tries to give us money for, tries to deal with professional development, tries to deal with things that deal with common core but we're gonna say we're gonna do it on our own, where it releases us from federal funds that we'd be able to get that. We don't, we're barely paying teachers now. We're robbing people to pay Pa[?] just so we can keep teachers from going across the state so we can pay them. Now we're gonna say we're going to provide all the professional development, we're going to provide all the curriculum, we're gonna provide all of these things that, we can't afford to do that. You guys know we can't afford to do it. We can barely keep it up with what we got now.

And now we're gonna take all this on 'cause we're big bad North Carolina and Obama can't tell us what to do. This is not smart policy and if you're going to be able to replace something, repeal something please at the very least give some certainty to your constituents and to your teachers and ?? have something in place first. That's my statement thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Floyd please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you mister speaker. ?? see if the bill ?? SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Holloway this is Gentlemen ?? the Gentlemen yields. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Holloway the question is somewhat ?? because I have something I would like to see if you would be willing to accept on page two, line thirty four you have the board of govenors and page three you have the commission. The setup of the commission and on page four you have the experts my question of it is you have the University of North Carolina Board of Govenors, will you be willing to accept the amendment on line thirty four and the North Carolina community college board of trustees? SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Floyd I would say that I am more than willing to talk with you again this bill will go to conference, the Senate has got a slightly different version but just to make a decision today off the cuff without having time to consult with my primary sponsors and go through an examination of exactly what you want me to do. I would just ask that we hold off on that today I'm more than willing to talk with you and see what it is your suggesting and we could certainly consider that moving forward. But for today my ?? said a lot of work and time has been put into this and I don't know if I want to start changing and moving the makeup of the board around on the floor of the house today. SPEAKER CHANGES 'bout speaker. SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen yields. SPEAKER CHANGES I yield. SPEAKER CHANGES But I simply see that in the text of the bill the ?? board of trustees, the board of governors is already in the bill, I'm just simply saying expanding line and include the board of trustees of our community college because at some point in time those students may arrive there. SPEAKER CHANGES Again and I...Just a kneejerk, I'm fine with that but again I just need to take time to speak with my primary sponsors make sure that there are no unintended consequences from doing that and I assure you that if you will get with me we will certainly get that. This bill will go to conference, I feel very very confident our friends in the Senate, I don't think will sign off on what we've done and we can, we can certainly work work on this and more than happy to work with you. SPEAKER CHANGES 'bout speaker. SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen yields. SPEAKER CHANGES I yield all questions mister speaker. SPEAKER CHANGES My other is the setup of the board that on page three if you can't do that could you talk to the speaker 'cause he has three appointees? SPEAKER CHANGES I'd like to thank you Representative Floyd. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Davis please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you mister speaker to ask the bill's sponsored question. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Holloway ?? this gentlemen yield? SPEAKER CHANGES I yield all questions. The gentlemen yields. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Holloway would you please explain what the consequences would be as to the money that's been paid to North Carolina by the federal government if the legislation were to abolish Common core? SPEAKER CHANGES Yes absolutely, Representative Davis the state applied for race to the top grant a few years back and race to the top does not require a common core. However it does have a bar that is set of standards that we have to meet and when we were going through this community in the LRC we had to make a decision as to how we were going to replace this thing called common core. If we ripped the rug, called common core out from underneath our school system today which would leave us with no standards then we would be in jeopardy of having to send four hundred million dollars roughly back to the federal government but we are not doing that and we are taking the state board which is going to do a five year review next year as they always do. This is not the first time standards have ever been amended. This will not be the last time that standards have ever been amended. They're gonna do this anyway.

They’re going to make changes. We’re simply in this bill saying that when you do your review next year, we want you to move away from common core. We want high standards. If there are pieces or components of common core that you think are age appropriate, they can take those individual pieces, but as a whole they need to move towards something new and we want more vigorous standards. North Carolina does not have the higher standards of all the states in the nation. Massachusetts has higher standards, there's other states that are out there that have higher standards and we can move in that direction. Again, the state board is gonna do this next year anyway. So, they're gonna make changes, we're gonna go about it the responsible way. We're not pulling the rug out today. We're simply going about it, Representative Davis, the way it should be and when they do their review, we're asking them to look at other standards and let’s move up and get better and higher standards. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for that explanation. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This really is a simple bill. It's gonna get rid of a program we never should have accepted in the first place. If anyone of you feel you’ve done the study that we've done, have a look at the programs that we've done. Have a look at all other things that are involved in this ??. You'd be embarrassed. Representative Cotham said that 45 states signed on the ??. You bet they did. And for the same reason North Carolina did for a big cheque. We sold our kids' education, we sold their futures for 400 million dollars under the previous administration. Now what's the price we're paying for selling our souls? Our children, we’ve got the 3rd graders that go to school crying. They don't want to go to school, why? Because the pressure on them is immense. Between all the testing and all the requirements are some of the added things that North Carolina has. They can't take it. A lot of the stuff has sexual innuendos, sexual stories for 3rd graders, 4th graders, 5th graders. You look in the appendix B, you look in what is recommended by the common core for reading materials, it's disgusting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask representative ?? for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Speciale, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As soon as I'm finished speaking. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman does not yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon said that education cannot be about politics. That's what it has been about for the last few years and that's what we're trying to get rid of. The focus here needs to be on the education of our children. Period. I challenge you to go home and pull up common core or pull it up on your computer and look at some of the stuff in the common core program. It is not very appropriate. Everybody knows that. PPI knows that. There's a lot of problems with this thing. But this program was accepted for the money before the state ever knew what was in the program because the program was not fully developed and released until 2 days after it was accepted. Representative [SPEAKER CHANGES] Brandon also said that no statistical evidence to say that we should do this based on common core results. By the rules of ?? we may not know for 10 years if common core is working. I'm sorry, but 10 years work of students is not worth the risk of this program. We're gonna cross our fingers and hope that they're gonna be able to read and write, be able to do a coherent, get out there in the work force because they've learned in the education system here in North Carolina the things that they need to know. We can't afford to wait. This program was sold to North Carolina and 45 other states on the fact that it had been tested in benchmarked worldwide when it had not. Little pieces that were pulled and put into this program were obtained from other programs overseas. And those programs were

I'm sorry. You pull the program, you benchmark it, you test it before you lay it upon the children. This was not done, this program. We have no idea. Nobody has any idea what the end result is going to be on this. I know what the end result's gonna be because I've looked at some the stuff that these kids are learning. I stood in a fifth grade classroom all morning, one morning. They were doing math. I had no idea what they were doing and I will guarantee you the kids had no idea what they doing because they were all looking at the guy that pushed his paper next to them to try and figure it out. I'm convinced, as hard as they try, I'm convinced even the teacher didn't know what she was doing. And I've talked to teachers who don't know what they're doing, yet they're teaching our children Common Core. They don't fully understand the program. Our children are not an experiment, Ladies and Gentlemen. They are the future of North Carolina. They are the future of America. We are not in a position to be experimenting with their future. We sold their futures out in 2010. I'd like to see this Legislature stand up and regain what was given away. I ask you to vote for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My very good friends Representative Holloway and Representative Horn have talked a great deal about creating higher standards. I fear, at least in a temporary time period, and I'll explain that, I fear a different outcome. I fear the possibility that we will have lower standards. And this comes at a time when we really do need those higher standards to which you spoke. We especially need those higher standards in the rural areas. We need folks who are more highly schooled and more highly skilled. If you've looked at recent unemployment statistics, I'm sure you saw the trend, but many of the counties in North Carolina, similar to my home county, are still in recession. And that's how simple it is. And now this bill comes along at a time when we really, really need stability within our educational system and that's my greatest fear is that we are gonna have that as Representative Cotham said, "that time of flux" and we are gonna have that time of instability. And quite frankly folks, I'm not sure how long your rural areas can continue to survive these periods of instability. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as ammended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, this issue came up back in the last two years of '11 and '12. And it was somewhat significant. We talked, back home, to different parents and teachers. But in the last six months, we've had the most conversation about Common Core. Not only with the parents, but with the teachers of our private school and our public school. It's gotten to the point when the bill got put into Legistation here, I had people chasing me down, begging me to sponsor it. So, I started readin' the bill, sort of going through it. I had public school teachers, with 15 and 20 years of experience, beggin' to meet me at my office in Sanford, so they could go through what they don't like about Common Core. Now I know my wife is a stay-at-home mom and she teaches part-time in the school system. So I hear what goes on at school system every day, the good, the bad, and sometimes she blames me. But, I have never found one issue that so many people have come together and said that they do not like, Republicans and Democrats. And some of those teachers are 20 years, 20 year veterans and are Democrats and they wanna come with me with at packet of what they don't like and what's wrong with it. So, I'll say that for an issue that Lee County, we've dealt with a lot of controversial issues. Just last week, we signed one today. But this issue's got to be a statewide problem for our parents and our teachers. And I think when you listen to 'em this is an issue we can put forth and make the right changes. And we need to[RECORDING ENDS]

?? Representative Time please state your purpose SPEAKER CHANGES To debate the bill as amended. SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill as amended. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you mister speaker. It sure has been a lot of frustration Representative ?? I've had it personally. I have a sixth grader and a first grader and we have had a terrible time because of some of the implementation issues with this of getting them on the right path and it's taking a struggle for both my kids mother and myself and their teachers and the community at large. And we've had implementation problems with our parents not being communicated with properly with the expectations being set for us to understand how to help our kids we have the right resources for our students to be able to refer back to. We've also not had the right training for our educators so that they knew what to do. We sort of got the cart ahead of the horse. But we still have the problems here right now today and on the one hand we're being told that we're gonna continue on common core until we get to something better. Quite frankly if you bring something better, I don't think there's anybody in this room that's gonna disagree with it. When you lay the two out next to each other and say, "This is a better standard, our businesses are going to understand." what type of employee that they're gonna get in the future, I don't think that you're gonna have anybody that's gonna disagree but on the way there on the one hand we're saying we're gonna continue on common core but on the other hand we're saying we're not spending any more money on it, when we know today we need some resources. We need some additional training. We need some additional online resources or books in some of the areas that don't have the availability to get online. So to me it's more about process. We need to have a two track system here one track that looks at how we make things better and have higher standards if it's possible to create that ourselves, while in the short term, we actually make it better today for the kids that are in school today and over the next three years have the right resources and training. For that reason, I'm opposed to the bill as it's written right now. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Malone please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES Debate the bill as amended. SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill as amended. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you. Good afternoon everybody. I'm something of a convert, against common core because when I was on a schoolboard I actually voted for bringing it to Weigh county and I've come to rule the day from personal experience as a father and I hope you all remember at least when I first got here, room six forty three. We had the superintendent schools come for one of our very first presentations that I ever saw. And I asked her a couple of questions she gave a very good presentation, I don't know if you remember this but page nine suggested that we run a second year or three year ramp up, including training. And that there is four hundred million dollars that came from reached to the top, two hundred million dollars went to dpi and the other two hundred million got put between a hundred plus LAA's that are out there. So I thought that the resources were mixed and I had a bit of a problem. Second of all comes down to the issue with some of the...we didn't have books, we didn't have resources my...one of my children comes home to do their homework and I've always helped with the homework in the past. I worked on this and I didn't understand what I was working on. I understood was the English language was unintelligible to me. Kind of a linguist malpractice forced upon our children. Didn't understand a word, couldn't help many more. Very very fustrated. Now and then the books, I asked where the books are where the reference material is and there's there's no book. There's further reference material and the teacher that she had in the very first class didn't know common core and we had to move around. I figured she was one of those people that didn't get tested yet or ?? didn't get trained yet. Now I had many town halls in the next couple of years and I tell you the biggest one I had was on common core. Kids crying, parents not knowing what to do. We even had a personal run in against the speaker...the primary in the Senate who mentioned that she could no longer help her common core math. I don't see the purpose in this. I think that this has become a failure of process as been rolled out all wrong, is a disaster, is harming children, and their futures, think about a the fact that you're in high school and you need a good GPA and all of a sudden you're working in things you don't even understand. Personally the sooner this goes the better. Thank you.

Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1061 as amended on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 78 having voted in the affirmative, 39 in the negative, the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1061 as amended has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enact. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1061 as amended on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes appear to have it. The ayes do have it. The House Committee substitute to House Bill 1061 as amended has passed its third reading. The bill will be engrossed and sent to the Senate. House Bill 1062 ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House Bill 1062, a bill to ?? an act to require local school administrative units to provide schematic diagrams and emergency access to school buildings to local law enforcement agencies and schematic designs and emergency response information to the Emergency Management Division of the Department of Public Safety General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Hopefully this one will go a little quicker. This bill deals with schematics, which was part of the school safety bill that passed last year on the House. It was a bipartisan bill that I worked with folks across the aisle. And the bill did pass the House, if I’m not mistaken, unanimously. But when we got to the Senate, and we started doing some work with them, they did have some concerns about it. And I think that we did some urging language as opposed to requiring it. This language does put in place a requirement to have access for law enforcement to have the schematics for all the buildings. That way, if there is an emergency, they will have the ability to set up perimeters, and they will know what they’re walking into before they get there. There was an issue between law enforcement and our firemen, but Representative Torbett cleaned that up and fixed that in education committee. And again, this is something that the body voted for last session, and we’re just bringing this piece back to you again this year and ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1062 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 117 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative, the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1062 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. General Assembly of North Carolina enact. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1062 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed no. The ayes have it. The House Committee substitute to House Bill 1062 has passed its third reading, will be sent to the Senate. To Representative Torbett, I understand that Representative Bumgardner is prepared to send forth an amendment. So, if you would like, we’ll go ahead and bring this back before the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Bill 1025 is already properly read. Representative Bumgardner is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner moves to amend the bill on page 1, lines 18 through 21, by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair has confirmed that the amendment is on the Dashboard. The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment simply removes the provision in the bill to put red lights on the interstate in our state. I really don’t think we need to go there. I know these things are expensive. We’re going to end up with them all over the state. We’d be better off spending that money constructively on some infrastructure problems. I have seen the video that the DOT has that talks about the cameras and how vitally important they are, and frankly I was unimpressed.

They must like it. And I recently been in Florida and these things are all over Florida. They're eat up with them and everybody hates them. They cause more congestion in most people's opinion than they solve, and I don't think we need to start putting red lights on the entrance ramps of the interstates all over North Carolina. I appreciate how hot and hard the DOT works, how hot it is out there. I've been in the highway construction business and I think this is a bad idea and I don't want to see us go down this path. And I would ask that you pass the amendment and then we'll vote on the bill as amended. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, Representative Bumgardner brings up a great point about everyone in Florida not liking it. I don't know if that's actually factual or not. But I will tell you DOT has gone through a good degree of due diligence and they are looking at this as a safety improvement. It has been proven to save lives. A lot of the accidents involving interstates is at the merging of the two and during certain hours. And when it's not used during the day it will simply go dark so it will not be a constant item. It is put out there for safety and vote your conscience. I do not support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jeter, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I actually oppose the amendment, with all due respect to my colleague from Gaston County. The concern for me is this guides traffic, predominantly commercial vehicles onto the interstate system. From a trucking perspective, this is significant. Because when you have trucks that are predominantly stuck in the right lane in these highly congested areas which is where we're putting these ramp meters, it makes a significant difference by the volume of cars trying to get onto the interstate at one time. It is the number one traffic incident involving tractors, at exit and on ramps when cars try to force their ways into holes that don't exist. And of course they erroneously get out and blame the truck. But I will tell you that to me, I understand his concerns but this is something that I think is very valuable to our state, particularly in our more urban areas as we get more congested, not less congested. And I ask you to vote against the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The pilot for this is going to be here in Wake County, so we're willing to take the inconvenience of testing this out and seeing what the actual results are going to be. What this provision actually is, has nothing to do with, it's probably mislabeled. This has nothing to do with authorizing the ramp meters. The Department of Transportation currently has all the authority it needs to put these meters in. All this provision actually does is to take it from an otherwise if somebody goes ahead and runs past this red light, they would not be charged as you would normally be charged with a more serious violation of the laws of running a red light. This would make it an infraction, no drivers license points or insurance points would be assessed for violation of running past one of these red meters. So this will actually just make it easier on the drivers as they get accustomed to seeing if this pilot is actually going to work. But it's designed, the underlined premise is designed when you have all that heavy traffic coming in on these ramps and you've got people trying to merge, to try and pace folks out a little bit so they're not right on top of each other, running into each other. And we have that problem, I can tell you from personal experience we have that problem in a number of congested areas during rush hour. And we'd like to pilot it here in Wake County and see how it works. And we don't want to charge people with a heavy violation in the process of that pilot. Would appreciate you voting no on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Representative Jeter I thought did an excellent job of summing up the way I feel about this. This is about safety and it's about safer intervals. And those intervals are very, very important. I

I think we’re gonna look a little bit foolish if just turn our backs on safety measure here. I’d be voting NO on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Iler, please state your purpose . [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Dollar will yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar, since I was responsible for putting this into the bill and committee, I should probably know more about it but apparently since you ?? a lot more. To be perfectly clear, this is not about the pilot program to do this. This is about the insurance point you will or will not get if you aren't aware of these. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment one last time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You, Mr. Speaker. I hearad what Representative Jeter said and I appreciate that and I also have safety concern. But let me give you a scenario, when traffic is backed up on the interstate, and you have a truck sitting there waiting to get on and he’s sitting still and traffic's backed up all the way, you know how does that hear because I go home on 40 and 85 and when trucks are sitting there and waiting, how are they gonna get out? There’s no red light. You’re gonna have to put a red light up on the interstate and stop then so that the trucks can get out. We’re just going down the path that just I think we don’t need to go down here. When something like this starts, where does it stop? Pretty soon you’re gonna have them all over the state. I know we’re doing a pilot, that’s how most things start is with a pilot. Then you get a pilot, then you get a passenger and then you get a bus full. I’m sure the highway patrol will appreciate ?? watch out for. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Bumgardner to the house committee substitute for House Bill 1025. All in favor, vote Aye. All oppose, vote No. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 28 having voted in the affirmative, 89 in the negative; the amendment fails, we’re back on the bill as amended. Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to the House Bill 1025 as amended on its second reading. All in favor, vote Aye. All oppose, vote No. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 112 having voted in the affirmative and 4 in the negative, the house committee substitute to House Bill 1025 as amended has passed its second reading without objection. Will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to the House Bill 1025 as amended on its third reading. All in favor, say Aye. All oppose, No. The Ayes have it, the house committee substitute to House Bill 1025 has passed its third reading, being engrossed and sent to the senate. House Bill 1086, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1086:- A bill to be entitled an act to require the department of transportation, in conjunction with other state agencies, to study the use of highway signage as a means of improving North Carolina residents' and tourists' awareness of state parks and trails in this state, as recommended by the LRC committee on cultural and natural resources. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Presnell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is a very simple bill. It just studies that the LRC committee on Cultural Natural resources recommended to improve the signage and stuffs so that when people come to visit our state or for a regular residence, they would know where our state parks are located and any of the trails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeill, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The 39 state parks scattered all across this great beautiful state, the mountains to sea trails runs a 1000 miles from Clingmans Dome in Tennessey to Jarki Ridge on atlantic coast. Hope you’ll support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further Discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Bill 1086 on its second

...reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. One hundred and sixteen having voted affirmative. None in the negative. The House Bill 1086 has passed its second reading and without objection. It will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1086 on its third reading. All in favor, say aye. All opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Bill 1086 has passed its third reading. It will be sent to the Senate. Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I got so engrossed in what Dana was saying that I got mixed up and I would like to change my vote on 1025 to aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye on the bill. Senate Bill 370, the Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 370, a bill to be entitled an act to clarify student rights to engage in prayer and religious activity in school, to create an administrative process for remedying complaints regarding exercise of those student rights and to clarify religious activity for school personnel. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dobson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, this bill originated from the event that happened in my county. A first grade little girl wrote a poem for her school's Veterans Day program about her grandfather's service in Vietnam. Because of her poem's reference to God, she was told that she could not read it in the Veterans Day ceremony. There were some other reasons for the legislation but that's really what initiated this. Let me say first, this legislation is not a fringe or a radical religious bill. This bill received a 48 to 0 vote in the North Carolina State Senate. Let me say that again, this bill received a 48 to 0 vote in the State Senate. And for that reason alone, this is a common sense bill that achieves three very simple things. First, this bill clarifies what rights students have with regard to prayer and religious activity. We believe that a student should not have to leave their constitutional right to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate just because a speech happens to be of a religious nature. So the first part of the bill simply states that a student should be allowed to pray, express and share viewpoints, possess or distribute literature, express religious views in homework, and organize religious clubs to the same extent that a student would be allowed to do these things for non-religious activities. Second, this bill provides for a grievance procedure for parents to follow if they feel that their child's rights have been violated under this bill. I won't take the time to go into the details of this particular provision. I'll just say it's straight forward and I know of no opposition to the grievance procedure part of the bill. The final piece of this bill addresses what is acceptable religious activity for school personnel. The first part of this final section states that local boards of education would not be allowed to prohibit school personnel from participating in religious activities on school grounds that are initiated by students at reasonable times before or after the instructional day, as long as the activities are voluntary for all parties and do not conflict with the responsibilities or work assignments of the staff member. The second part states that school employees supervising extra-curricular activities, including coaches, would be allowed to be present while a student or group of students are voluntarily praying. And if they are, presents they must not be disrespectful and may adopt a respectful posture. Nothing unreasonable. I want to say again, this bill did pass the Senate 48 to 0. This legislation is not a fringe or a radical bill. Those of you who know me know that if I thought it was, I would be the first to oppose it. Some may argue that legislation like this is not needed, and in many instances, I would agree.

I would just say in this instance the event that prompted this legislation did not happen in some distant stay more liberal than our own. This event where a little girl was told she could not read her poem because of it's reference to God happened in the mountains of western North Carolina. So I would argue that this legislation is needed and for these reasons mister speaker there was somebody to support him thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES Representative Glacier please state your purpose. SPEAKER CHANGES To debate the bill mister stephens..--- SPEAKER CHANGES The gentlemen is recognized to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES Thank you very much mister speaker. And members I hope you will indulge me this evening with several comments but I want to start first by thanking very profusely actually representative Dobson and also Senator Daniel. Representative Dawson worked with me on several aspects of this over the last week. I am rising for me at least after much thought to support this bill with three caveats and I do that number one out of great respect for the process that representative Dobson did. That has to have meaning on the floor and it ought to be a model, and that is to come to each other to try to work through problems to try to seek solutions. I also will end up voting for it, because ninety nine percent of this bill is faithful to the constitution. Faithful to the federal law and while it may or may not be needed. Some view it as necessary and to that I see their view. I find only one provision in the bill that I believe to be unconstitutional. But because of representative Stanzamin the other day which creates a very clear severbility clause. That provision will in the end be decided by the court. I fear probably sooner rather than later. And I will speak to that in a minute. But I'm not going to vote against a bill where the rest of the bill is something that I think is faithful to the constitution and because the people involved worked very hard to try to find some middle ground. Something we don't do enough and it ought to be commended. To my three problems however so that it's clear on the record. I brought up an amendment which I'm not seeking to have a vote on today and the education committee. About the last page and section C of one fifteen C four O seven thirty two. That is the section that says local boards of education shall...I'm sorry the school employees supervising extracurricular activities including coaches maybe present. While a student or a group of student exercises their voluntary right to pray is set out in North Carolina statue and at present should not be disrespective of the student exercise of those rights and may they adopt a respectful posture. And except for the last five words of that sentence I believe it too. It's faithful to the Constitution and the cases that interpret it and the law. But I cited to my collegues yesterday the two circuit cases and their are other district court cases that agree that that provision that clause is not faithful to the Constitution. We had a good debate. And I appreciate Chairman Johnson, Chairman Langman who will allow that debate to happen and that amendment was voted down. I am sad that that amendment was voted down for three reasons and while I'm going to vote for the bill I have to stress these reasons are disappointing. For people in this body that are much older than I am and there aren't many of those anymore and much wiser and for collegues who taught me long ago. We really ought to be in a position where often we accept ninety five percent or in this case ninety nine percent of the bill we want even if it means giving up a clause. So that a hundred percent of the people can feel their comfort level and so we assure that there is a vesting by the public in the bill and we don't create litigation opportunities to destroy portions of the bill. The other options of course is to have the vote seek a hundred percent of the bill but to leave a bitter taste for the rest who are seeking just small compromise, particularly when it's based on...

Case law from other jurisdictions. That didn't happen yesterday and that is disappointing. Second, there were arguments made in the committee about the Constitution and many tremendous lawyers and non-lawyers in here who have studied the Constitution and I teach as well. And what we all know is that the structure of the Constitution of the United States created a majority rule in the executive branch and the legislative branch. That the only reason we have a United States and a Constitution of the United States is because there was an agreement that if that Constitution was to be ratified, a Bill of Rights would pass. Barely, in many of the states and colonies that passed it. Whose sole purpose was to be anti-majoritarian. Whose purpose exists to protect the rights of the minority against often the zealousness sometimes and the inherent human nature that the majority always controls and the majority wins. The Bill of Rights, that first amendment, whether it is free speech or free exercise or establishment clause, is meant to protect the minority, not the majority. Because the majority will always have the ballot box. And so when we talk about the prayer around the flag pole, it is meant to assure that those children who want to pray will always have the ability to do that, to their God and their spiritual person. But it's also meant to protect the person who stands outside the circle, to not be ostracized by their state, to not have a view that they are a less equal person than the ones who are inside the circle. And so it is often tough to balance free speech and free exercise and establishment clause, and there is no easy answer to the problem. But on this clause, the courts have had an answer. I read from Lee vs. Wiseman from the United States Supreme Court. The principal that the government may accommodate the free exercise of religion does not supercede the fundamental limitations imposed by the establishment clause. The First Amendment religion clauses, meaning that religious beliefs and religious expression are too precious to be perscribed or prescribed by the state. Third, for me, I am reminded often, maybe because of my religion, that all the men in this room ought to take more heed when the women speak. Because we as men can only know what we know, but we're never going to walk in the shoes of a woman whose rights in this country were until 20 years ago, secondary. Because it was only 20 years ago that the court held rights for our equal daughters as well as our sons. And second I am reminded that those of us who are white in this chamber ought to listen when African-Americans speak of their experience and what it means to be a minority for them. Because none of us can fully appreciate that, unless we walk in their shoes. And yesterday I asked my colleagues to appreciate what it's like to be a member of a minority religion. To be that kid outside the circle. Because the Constitution Bill of Rights were there to protect that child looking in, not all the children in the circle looking out. We didn't do that yesterday. And for that I am deeply sorry. But because I believe fully in the whole Constitution and I believe in the honor of this institution and I believe in the fundamental rights expressed in the rest of this bill, and I believe that clause will be litigated one day and resolved, against the bill but leaving the rest of it intact, I am going to vote for this bill. I appreciate you listening to my comments. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate the comments of Representative Glazier. I agree with most of them. I do rise in support of the bill and I'm going to speak from a personal spin that says a person that was president of his fellowship of Christian athletes and continues to work with FCA today. This is something that we constantly, constantly, constantly have to fight in terms of what you're allowed to do as a student-led organization. And there are a lot of myths out there and I appreciate the bill's

For coming up with this bill because it is clarifying language. It’s not necessarily something new. It’s not something that’s not already happening. We have lawyers with FCA. We’re constantly having to go and reinforce to school administrators and others what actually is the law and what actually does the Constitution allow students to do and I want to speak to even the clause that Representative Glazier talks about. One of those things I agree to a degree but what happens is that if you do not give clear specific direction of what an administrator or teacher is allowed to do, what you do is create an ambiguity. So I have other folks who also start an FCA chapter or another chapter that deals with religion and because the ambiguity you have some schools that do not want to have someone sponsor that extra-curricular activity and therefore you run into the problem of you cannot have this chapter they can have that chapter because it’s noncontroversial. It’s not religious based and this student group can form but we’re going to wait and figure out and see because no administrator or no teacher would really like to get into the ambiguity of should they be able to join or be a sponsor of something religious. I think that this bill clarifies that yes you can and you can do it in a reasonable way. You can do it in a way that’s not disrespectful and I think that’s good for the state of North Carolina. I think it does fall in line with the United States Constitution of what you can do as a professional. I really appreciate the bill. This is something that I feel like the people don’t realize the problems that goes on within school. I’m a double minority in this General Assembly. I totally understand what it is like to be a minority in several different cases but I also understand what it’s like to feel something and you don’t have the right to do something simply because you’re in the majority. When I was in FCA, there were a lot of things that we were prevented to do that I thought was against that and it’s been one of my fights ever since I left there to make sure students have the ability regardless of whether they’re Muslim, Christian, or Jew to be able to express your beliefs. That’s what the Constitution provides for. I appreciate the bill sponsors for clarifying it. I urge you to support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Fisher please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s right is to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, with all due respect to my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, I find myself in really sort of an in between place. It really has to do with the example that was used in yesterday’s debate and committee about the coach who might pray with the team before the ball game or as they’re coaching the team on the field before they go onto the field have some sort of word of prayer with them. Whatever the example might be. I think we really tread a fine line when we look at what we encourage role models for our students to do. I remember high school myself when there was the announcement on the loud speaker about gathering around the flag pole. I’m Episcopalian. I have a devout feeling about my religion. I have a very privately held faith and it just seems a little misleading to invite teachers to set an example about religion in the schools. I think that you all recall the bullying legislation we had not too long ago and I think what this bill could do is set up a situation where it makes it okay for the people who are maybe in the majority around the flagpole to ostracize those children who are not around the flagpole or not in whatever group it happens to be. I guess I just ask the body to question that for a second. Are we setting up a way for teachers to set an example for kids that this is ok to

do but this other thing is not okay to do. This group is okay to be a part of but this other group is not okay to be a part of. I just, I think it gives me pause and enough so that I'm going to have to vote no on this bill. But I certainly respect my colleague, Representative Dobson, and Representative Glazier for expressing themselves on both sides of this issue. I will have to vote no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I'll be brief. We debated this in Education yesterday, as was referenced, and I appreciate, particularly, Representative Glazier's remarks and his decision to vote on the bill, I do. But I think that those that are listening to this debate today need to hear a little bit of the other side of the debate. In particular regarding to the phrase in question, that he wanted to eliminate and now says that he agrees with 99% but not that part, and that has to do with adopting the respective posture. And I will just point out to my colleagues it has been reported, it has been reminded to me many times since I've been in the General Assembly that there is a difference between the words may and shall. It does not say here that he shall do so, it says that he may. We're not ostracizing anyone. We're protecting the constitutional right. The right of people to be able to simply join in if they want to be able to bow their head or to take a knee. And, as was said many times in Education yesterday, frankly it's a crying shame that we are at a point in our nation today where we even have to pass these kind of laws or have these kind of debates, but we do. And something has been said about, well, a judge might strike it down. Well so be it, folks. We are, as far as I know, we're still a Constitutional Republic. I know that many times it seems that we function more, these days, as under judicial fiat where the citizens of the state can come together and vote on something or their elected representatives can say something and it only takes one judge to go out there and overturn it. Yeah, somebody will file a lawsuit, regardless what we do, that has anything to do with prayer or religion or anything like that. Somebody will be upset and somebody will file a lawsuit but I stand before you today and say that we need to do the right thing. We're not ostracizing anyone. And I would just remind you, too, that prayer is a private thing. It is a private communication between one's self and God. We stand here in this chamber and we open every meeting, just as Congress does, with prayer. And I understand that somebody is standing up front, it's been me, it's been most of the people in this room and they offer prayer and you can say that they're leading in prayer but every one of us if we are bowing our heads or we are praying, we are saying that prayer ourselves. We're praying to God ourselves. I've been in meetings before, and even here, where I've heard things said, prayers if you will, that were not Christian prayers necessarily and actually I'm a Christian, and when I bow my head I'm praying as a Christian and I'm praying in Christ's name. Around me, they might be praying to whatever God they choose in whomever's name and that's the same thing here. We are not ostracizing anyone because we are saying that a faculty member has a right to adopt a respectful posture when they are in the company of other people that are praying. We are simply recognizing that somewhere out there there will probably be a judge if we don't have that clarifying clause, and I would say when we pass laws here I think we should be as clear as we possibly can. If we take that clause out there is going to be somebody out there that says, "yes, it's okay for you to be present but if you adopt that respectful posture, if you bow your head, if you take a knee or whatever, then you're breaking the law." And so it is important that phrase is in there and I think it helps to clarify the law in such a way that doesn't bring on those lawsuits because, at least, our intent is clarified. And I think any time we pass laws we should clarify our intent to the best way possible, recognizing that yes, somebody will probably file a lawsuit and yes, they will probably find a judge somewhere that will say okay. So I would just, in the interest of time, I will stop but I think that people need to hear this side of the debate as well and I would commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, please state your purpose.

To see if Representative Dobson would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dobson, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dobson, under the bill would, for example, fourth graders be handed the leaflets that were on the topic of, say, God's view of gay rights or secondly God's view of war or thirdly God's view on abstinence before marriage? Would that be, is that included in the bill, to hand out those kinds of leaflets? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As long as those rights are accepted to the same extent that non-religious activities are accepted. It doesn't matter, you referenced three specific things but it doesn't really matter what it may be. You have a constitutional right to possess or distribute whatever it may be as long as it's to the same extent as non-religious activities. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you think it's a good idea for forth graders to receive this kind of literature? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It could be open-ended in those particular instances. I'm not here to say one way or another. I'm just here to make sure that we do not violate constitutional rights of fourth graders, eighth graders, or twelfth graders. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Speak briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, I understand the bill is, as Representative Dobson said, about establishing the constitutionality of religious expression in the public schools. But what is legal is not necessarily good policy and I would submit to you that in the bill as written, K-12, we are making it possible for fourth graders to receive leaflets that they can't possibly understand. That they can't possibly sort out, just taking the three examples that I used. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Luebke will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I'll yield at the end of my [original message] [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman does not yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To get back to what I was saying, it seems to me that fourth graders can't really handle literature that, for example, speaks about God's view on, as I said, gay rights, war, or abstinence before marriage. It's really beyond fourth graders to handle that. So, to me it's not good policy to have literature distribution in the bill, even though I see that it is legal to do so. I think it's bad policy and it just bothers me very much that we have included distribution of literature, remembering that this is K-12 that we have included distribution of literature as policy. And, I too, will not be supporting the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Luebke will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, does the gentleman yield at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, do you understand that it's the schools' choice of whether or not they open up that public forum? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I understand that. I understand also that it is legal under the bill as it's part of the policy of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you disagree with the Supreme Court's decision of, that there should not be a viewpoint in discrimination? [SPEAKER CHANGES] As I said, Representative Arp, I recognize that it is legal to have all these points of view and there should not be discrimination. Not against Christians, any denomination among Christians, among Jews, among Muslims. There should not be discrimination. I accept that premise of the bill. What I'm objecting to is the distribution of literature to children who can't possibly understand what it is and that's what I'm saying is wrong about the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask if Representative Dobson would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dobson, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative Dobson, is it not true that in the education committee yesterday, in which you and I and Representative Luebke and the Education Committee was present, that it was clearly explained to us that this bill would simply give, as far as distribution of material, would give administrators the same opportunity that they already have, the opportunity to say yes or no on the distribution of materials in the schools but simply would not discriminate against materials because

they were of a religious nature rather that non-religious, is that not true? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is, that's correct. I would also add to that, if I may, 14-20, lines 14-20, it says, "a student may be prohibited from engaging in the actions provided in this subsection of this section if action of the students would do any of the following: infringe on the rights of the school to maintain order, harass other persons, otherwise infringe on the rights of other persons." So I'd like to add that as well, so thank you for the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First of all, I know it's kind of unusual for you to hear me thank Representative Glazier but I do want to thank him for speaking in favor of the bill even though he has some reservations. And I want to try to offer him, and may-, I hope he will take it in the spirit it's intended, I want to offer him some comfort about that because I know he has a little bit of problems with the bill. As a Christian, I understand that whether to receive Christ, or not, or worship somebody else, or worship nobody, is a freedom that everybody has to have. Nobody can be or should be forced to receive Christ or be a Christian. I have a son who has rejected Christian faith and he frequently goes on Facebook and ridicules the faith and in so doing pretty much calls me a fool and an idiot, even if he doesn't quite say it that way. While I'm not happy about that and it breaks my heart, if affects me about the way it probably would affect you if your son beat you up with a baseball bat, that's about how I feel, I defend his right to express what he believes or doesn't believe. And I believe, as a Christian, because it is a free choice and should be a free choice that, we as Christians, need to defend the right of everyone to believe as they believe and to express what they believe. And I will fight for your right to express your faith any time, and to me that's what this bill is really about. It doesn't say Christian, Christian prayer. It could be a Buddhist, it could be an Islamist, it could be Hindu, it could be anybody. And to me, this bill is about defending everybody's freedom and so, to me, that's why it's an important bill. And as for your concern, and I understand your concern about those words you'd like to remove from the bill, my belief on that is if we remove those words , inevitably there would be a student-led prayer, a coach would bow his head or kneel and there'd be a lawsuit anyway. So I think it could happen either way and I just really, sincerely, want you and others like you who feel the way you do about that to understand that I'm not just fighting. You know, it seems to me these days that Christians are the only ones who religious freedom can be attacked politic-, you know, that's politically correct. But I believe that nobody's rights should be attacked or taken away. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I'm having enormous difficulty and I do not like to interrupt but is the current tone of the debate relevant to the issue that we're talking about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair will take the gentleman's point. The Chair would ask Representative Pittman to make sure he's staying focused on the substance of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I believe I was because the point I'm trying to make is that this is defend everyone's faith or right to express their faith. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Schaffer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, my seatmate to my left and to speak on the rules person up front. I just want to know if one of those will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, the Chair does recognize that either the Bill Sponsor or the Rules Chair is in a position to state that point. We have two other lights on and the Chair would like to try and provide those members the opportunity to make their statements before we move to the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Schaffer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just rise, I rise in support of this bill

I wanted to clarify a few things that have been said, bring a little bit of constitutional clarity to some statements that have been made. As we’re getting ready to vote that you would have all of the constitutional facts in front of you. As many of you know, my background is in practicing first amendment law so I know a little bit about this and I just wanted to give you a little bit of information. Specifically speaking to Representative Luebke’s issue concerning distribution of literature. This is not really a question of policy or political preference, it really is a question of constitutional law and well settled Supreme Court case law. As we’ve heard Representative Dobson say students and teachers do not shed their constitutional rights, their first amendment rights, at the schoolhouse gate. There are some reasonable restrictions on that which are included in this bill but as it goes to religious literature distribution the free distribution of literature has been upheld by the court as a form of expression protected by the first amendment, in particular religious literature falls under that category. Again, there may be reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on that. Distribution of this literature may not conflict with school discipline if there’s substantial or material harm that is caused, problems with the school discipline, then that may be prohibited but if that’s not what’s happening then students are allowed to do this and we’re not in a situation of opening up religious literature, that’s already allowed under the constitution and under Supreme Court case law. What this bill does is it clarifies it, makes it very certain that this is what students are allowed to in school and also set sup this formal grievance process. So it’s not putting something up that is already permitted and required, the freedom to do so is required under Supreme Court case law with this bill. The second point that I want to make has to do with Representative Fisher’s concerns about teachers and what they are and aren’t allowed to do and putting them in a position of perhaps making a student feel ostracized. We also have an issue of what teachers are allowed to do in the same court case that students did not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate. The court said that teachers do not shed their first amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate so there’s a very tricky balancing act that has to be achieved. At the end of the day, teachers when they are in their official capacity they may not engage in that type of religious activity. They can teach for educational purposes but they may not engage in that sort of a thing when they are in their official capacities. I want to read a court from federal regulations from the US Department of Education it says that teachers may take part in religious activities where the overall context makes clear that they are not participating in their official capacities. One example is that they may discuss religious matters with students on an individual basis if the student initiates etc. things of that nature. We’re talking about non-school activities, when it’s not during the instructional day and when it’s made clear that the teachers are not engaging in their official capacity so as we ponder this legislation we have to consider there are rights that teachers have when they are on that school campus and there is a balancing act that has to be achieved between their first amendment rights to free exercise as well as the issues with the establishment clause where they are in their official capacities. So ponder those things as you get ready to vote but I do urge your support of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Adams please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you I’d like to ask the lady a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Schaffer does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Representative Schaffer I was actually going to ask this to the bill sponsor but since you started talking about extracurricular, outside of the school day. On page two of the bill line seven from seven to about thirteen it talks about homework and artwork and other written or oral assignments that would be graded by the teacher so isn’t this a part of the academic program? [SPEAKER CHANGE] When I was referring to extracurricular activities that is what teachers are permitted to engage in in their own free religious exercise. What this is referring to, the section that you’re talking about has to do with the students’ exercise which that is no question permitted to do, they are allowed to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. May I ask a question of the sponsor then? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dobson does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Dobson can you speak to that area then, how would for example it says a student shall not be penalized or rewarded based on the religious content of the work and of course if a teacher has a different religious, I’m a Christian, if the teacher has a different religion or point of view how would we know..

... that the student would not be penalized, or rewarded for that matter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? I think that if we have confidence in the teachers to be objective graders or evaluators of the material, I think that that’s what it’s referring to. They’re not saying that they should be biased for religion or against religion; that’s not the intent of that bill or that provision. It’s just to say that a teacher should be objective and not evaluate the work based on religion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well just being a little more knowledgeable about the arts, and you mentioned here it talks about visual presentation. A lot of that is subjective, so how do you…? I mean what would the penalty be for the teacher, and how would…? I’m not sure I understand how we would know that. How would the board…? It mentions here, that the Board of Education, that there’s a cause for complaint regarding this, and I’m not sure I understand how they could really determine that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would just say that if a student – I’ll take my daughter for instance, nine-year-old girl – was writing a paper in school and she chose to write it about her church, she should not be graded on the fact that it was on her church; she should be graded on the content, her grammar, the language, things of that nature, and just be objective and not decide one way or another based on the fact that it’s on religion or not on religion, and that’s really all I can add to it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady’s recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It constantly amazes me down here how we can read the same language and have different feelings and interpretations on what we read, and I listened to Representative Fisher earlier talk about the teacher serving as a role model, and I couldn’t think of a better role model than a teacher who stands there and shows respect for someone’s difference of opinion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 370 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record, please do so at this time. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 106 having voted in the affirmative and 9 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 370 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General Assembly of North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute to Senate Bill 370 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ayes have it. The house Committee substitute to Senate Bill 370 has passed its third reading and will be returned to the Senate. Notices and announcements. Representative Susan Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would ask my colleagues in the House to join me in congratulating my hometown Wilson in being recognized today as a great main street in the making, and a lot of my downtown developers and community officials were here for town hall day to share that great news and receive that reward, so please join me in congratulating them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow morning at 10 am, the House Commerce Committee is meeting jointly with the Senate Commerce Committee to talk about the North Carolina golf economy and the economic impact that the golf industry has on the state of North Carolina. I would invite anyone. Even if you’re not on the House Commerce Committee, feel free to come by, and we’re going to have some folks from the little tournament that’s going to happen next weekend, going to talk about that with Representative Boles tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hope to see you there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would Representative Murray yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sure the gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I ask which course the meeting is taking place at, and is this a 9 item or 18 item agenda? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This…

will be a short meeting and room 544 tomorrow and I'm sure we'll be all under par. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The government committee will meet tomorrow in room 1228 at 10 am, we have 12 bills on the agenda. I encourage all bill sponsors to be prompt, on time, and prepared. Thank You. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Turner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For a point of personal privilege please. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I just couldn't let this historic day pass without calling recognition to it. Today is a special day for my seatmate John Blust. It's his birthday and it is a significant zero. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Sixty. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want an announcement briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. We did a lot of talking here today about education and I think that's good. And since we were talking about that I just wanted to remind all of the members and invite you to the North Carolina Legislative Black Caucus Foundation's Education Scholarship event on Friday. You can go to our website, www.NCLBCS.org. Where we raise money to support students who attend historically black colleges and universities in North Carolina. It's a critical issue right now. We'd love to have you join us for the day's events. You can see me or you can go to our website. We'd love to have you attend. Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Jeter, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Apparently, my colleague's to the left, Representative Rob Bryan, Representative John Szoka have an announce - have some sort of agreement where they will not announce each other's birthdays. I share no such bond with them so I would like to announce that Representative Rob Bryan turns younger than John Blust, but it is his birthday and I'd like to wish him a happy birthday today. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement, first of all. [SPEAKER CHANGES]House come to order, the gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, members, I just got word that apparently a couple of the receptions that were going to end at 7 are going to stay a little later so a number of you may have constituents that may want to go across the street. I think they're going to stay open from maybe to about 7:30 if my information's correct. And then for a motion if there's nothing else? [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman's recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, I move that subject to the ratification of bills, receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, receipt of conference reports, we refer all bills and resolutions, appointment of conferee's and modifications to the calender. The House can now adjourn and reconvene on Thursday, June the 5th, 2014 at 12 noon. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Dobson. That the House to now adjourn subject to the ratification of bills and resolution, receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, conference reports, we refer all bills and resolutions, the appointment of conferees and modifications to the calender to reconvene on Thursday, June 5th at 12PM. All in favor say Aye. All opposed no. The Ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.