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 | March 9, 2015 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members will take their seats; visitors will retire from the chamber. The Sergeant-At-Arms will close the doors. Members and visitors in the gallery are asked to please silence all electronic devices. The prayer this evening will be offered by Representative Pittman. Members and all visitors in the gallery are asked to please stand during the prayer and to remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance that will occur directly after the prayer. Representative Pittman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let us pray. Great are you, oh God, beyond all our imagining, and we thank you, Lord, that you’ve not left us to the darkness of our misunderstanding and our lack of knowledge, but you’ve chosen to make yourself known. How we rejoice, oh God, in your self-revelation. How we love the very thought of you – your goodness, your greatness, your infinite majesty, Lord, and love. Father, fill us with that love, we pray. Help us, oh God, to be aware wherever we are that you are present with us. Lord, cover us with your grace. Fill us with your compassion. Lord, fill us with your spirit that we might have understanding and wisdom. Show us, oh God, in the midst of all the many different voices and many different directions that we sometimes feel pulled to find the right way – the way that pleases you. Tonight, oh God, be with those who have special need of you. Lord, I don’t know the details, but I heard of an Amtrak derailment today. Lord, I don’t know who may be hurt, who may be dead, or just what the situation is. Maybe some here know better than I do, but Lord, you know it all, and we just pray, oh God, that you would be very real for those who are needing you from that incident today, and many other things all across the world. We may or may not be aware of them, but you know it all, and we just pray, oh God, that those who are in need in any way will find you sufficient. God, grant us the assurance of your presence, your love and your purpose for each and every one, for all are precious in your sight, and we thank you for that. We thank you that you show us that in your son Jesus Christ in whose name we pray. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Amen. 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] The gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis, is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the journal for March 5th has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis moves the journal for March 5th be approved as written. Those in favor will say “aye”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed, “no”. The ayes have it and the journal is approved as written. Representatives Davis and Ford are recognized to send forth a series of committee reports. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Davis and Ford, Local Government Committee report. House Bill 43, Winston-Salem Parking Meters, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] house Bill 55, Public Exempt for Fireworks, NC-issued. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 71, Clarify County Commissioners Over-Filing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 44, Cities Overgrown Vegetation Notice, favorable and re-referred to Regulatory Reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is re-referred to the Committee on Regulatory Reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 58, Alamance County Sheriff’s Food Purchases; favorable, committee substitute; unfavorable, original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute, calendar. Original bill, unfavorable, calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 73, Cary Annexation; favorable, committee substitute; unfavorable, original bill, and re-referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute is re-referred to the Committee on Finance. Original bill is placed on the unfavorable calendar. Introductions of bills and resolutions. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 160; Representative Hunter; Steel Manufacturing Slag.

Environment if favorable reg reform. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty one representatives Richardson, Glazier adopt state cat. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wildlife resources if favorable rules counter and operations of the house. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty two representatives Carney, Horn, McGrady, Glazier sudden cardiac arrest prevention in students. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Education K12 if favorable health. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty three representatives L. Johnson, Collins, and Tine cap insurance amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Insurance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty four representative Sexer school calander flexibility. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Education K12. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty five representatives Lucas, Hurley, Carney, and Horn strength and control substances monitoring [SPEAKER CHANGES] Health if favorable judiciary two. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty six representatives Cunningham, Michaux, Fisher, and Earle equal rights amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary one if favorable rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty seven representatives Cunningham, Carney, Earle, and Prior aggravating factor violent act before a minor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary two. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty eight representatives Hager, Millis, Brody, and Collins exempt bildus inventory. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one sixty nine representatives Hager, Presnell limit motor vehicle emissions inspections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Transportation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one seventy representative Watford handicapped parking windshield placard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Transportation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill one seventy one representatives Davis, Louis, Saine, and Ililer modify film grant fund. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Messages from the Senate the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House will please come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker it is ordered that the messages to be sent to house of representatives with information that senate failed to concur with senate bill fourteen, house committee substitute third addition a bill to be entitled and act to provide funds for the operating expenses of academic standards review commission to require that the academic standards review commission post certain public records on it's website to provide that the state officer may serve on economic development partnership board to clarify coal ash management commission appropriations to clarify when a downstream indation map must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer to extend the deadline for the submission of emergency act plans for dams not associated with coal combustion residual services impoundments to December thirty first two thousand fifteen to limit the use of funds appropriated to the department of health and human services for health information exchange and to require a performance audit of Medicaid eligibility determination by counter departments of social services. Respectfully Sarah Lane. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the message from the senate today informing the house of representatives that the senate failed to concur in senate bill fourteen house committee substitute third addition. A bill to be entitled an act to provide funds. Senator's Brown, Apodaca, senator Herrington, senator Hise, senator Jackson, senator Tillman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. The chair appoints the following members to serve as conf reasal on senate bill fourteen. Representative Dollar chair, representative Linda Johnson, representative Lambeth, representative McGrady, representative Susan Martin, speaker pro tam Stam, and representative Goodman. The senate will be so notified. Members one additional change in the referral bills house bill one seventy, handicapped parking windshield placards discover has a fee in it therefore the chair adds a serial referral to finance. Therefore the referral will be to transportation favorable finance. Members before we get into the bill the chair wants to take a point on behalf of all of the members welcoming some special guests we have in the gallery today. My name we would certainly welcome President Judy Martin of Moore county and also the other elected members of the North Carolina association of registers of deeds.

[SPEAKER CHANGES] I can tell you from personal experience they've-they've saved my bacon many a time, so I want to thank you all for being here. If you'd please stand and let us welcome you to the House of Representatives today. And I want you all to know that your individual members, just about every one of you -your members sent forth the recognition to recognize individually and we decided so we wouldn't be an hour, just to recognize you as a group. But we are pleased to have you here this evening and welcome you to come. I know you will all be here today and tomorrow. I hope you'll come visit us and again, thank you for the service you provide to the citizens of our state. Calendar, House Bill 41 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Howard, Brawley, Lewis, Setzer. House Bill 41, a bill to be entitled An Act to Make Technical and Clarifying Changes to various revenue laws as recommended by the Revenue Laws Study Committee. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Brawley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, this bill came out of revenue laws, the iteration of the committee that began in 2013 and reported to the 2014 short session where the bill did pass the House, alas had some additional things added to it. It came back from the Senate in the guise of House Bill 1224. It has gone back through Revenue Laws Study Committee beginning in 2014 and was reported out earlier this year and has gone through finance. Rather than explain the whole bill since it has passed us once before, I would like to point out two changes. One was a recommendation of the Revenue Laws Study Committee. That is in Section 4 where it clarifies the intent of the General Assembly regarding the impact of the Tax Simplification and Tax Rate Reduction Act on utility rates. The second one is a new section added in Section 24. This relates to a federal provision that is allowing employees of a qualified airline, which is going bankrupt, and they have Roth IRAs and they will be allowed to roll their contributions over into a traditional IRA. And that will get them a refund of the Roth taxes. This change ensures rollover contributions will be taxed only once and that the application of tax for state tax purposes would conform to federal tax treatment. I have the full seven page explanation of the bill if anybody needs it, and staff on the floor. But Mr. Speaker these are technical changes and I would request that the House go ahead and approve it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Salmon rise? For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Brawley would yield for one question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Mecklenburg yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and thank you Representative, I apologize, I probably should have read ahead of time but I didn't. Section 5A, could you explain that section briefly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I'll be happy to, in fact the explanation that was presented I have, I may just read that. I think that will probably be the best answer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be great, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. State law 14-3 enacted a new tax on vapor products as part of the current tax on other tobacco products. This section makes a technical change that allows North Carolina manufacturers of vapor products to collect the new vapor tax on internet retail sales while allowing the manufacturers continue to the current practice of applying the Secretary of Revenue to be relieved of the tax on vapor products shipped to wholesale and retail dealers. The secretary allows manufacturers to be relieved of paying the tax on OTP when the tax is paid by the wholesale or retail dealer. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute for the House Bill 41 on its second reading. All those in favor of the bill will vote aye, all those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record

The vote, 114 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 41 passes its second reading and will remain on the calendar. House Bill 31, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson, House Bill 31, A bill to be entitled an act to require a 0.00 alcohol concentration restriction on all restoration of licenses revoked for an impaired driver’s offense, the General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Jackson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen. There’s a real problem of chronic DWI in this state. It was brought home this weekend when we had another DWI fatality in Wake County here. I originally came up with the next two bills you’re going to hear or most of the text of those two bills last session and both of them flew through here so I won’t take up too much time. Currently when you have a DWI conviction you’re eligible to get your license back within a year. For first offenders with a blood alcohol content of below a 0.15 on that offense your new license comes with a restriction but instead of saying you can’t have any alcohol to drink and drive for the next three years like we do for two other subdivisions of the statute, instead DMV sends you a letter that says you can drink and drive, just don’t violate a 0.04. I think that’s a bad public policy. I think the better way to address the issue is to tell people you made a mistake, we understand that, here’s you license back, just don’t drive after drinking for the next three years. This bill passed the Judiciary 2 committee without any stated objection. There is a fiscal impact, it has to do with the changing of the DMV computer systems. They say it’s going to take about $54,000 to make the programming change and they ask for the July 2016 effective date and that’s why you’ll see that in the bill. Last session we had the support of the Sheriff’s Association. This time I’m proud to announce that the Conference of District Attorneys also is in support of the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Surrey, Representative Stevens rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Jackson will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the lady from Surrey? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Jackson. I’ve had some people lately bring some concerns to me about these alcasensor machines that are on the car, the intoxilizers that are on the car that on occasion they pick up other substances which is why 0.00 is hard sometimes to maintain. I understand they can pick up strong onions or they may pick up some other medication or other things will impact them. How do we get around that when we do a 0.00. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think you, Representative Stevens, brought over a point that I meant to make but in my rush I skipped through. This section will only, the change we are making will only apply to first offenders who didn’t blow high enough to get an interlock, so they by definition do not have the interlock in their cars. If you follow under one of the sections that you have an interlock, we already have a 0.00 tolerance. It’s actually on the limit to driving privilege to interlock, so that should not be a problem. My understanding is this bill is designed that you would not have a different threshold under the change for driving while impaired, but you would be if you were caught driving after drinking you would be outside of your restriction of your license and would be eligible to get a driving while license revoked ticket. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Cabarras, Representative Johnson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the lady from Cabarras? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I was just wondering if it picks up other odors or registers and the person’s starting to work and they have to have this apparatus on the car what, how can you prevent the car from stopping? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Johnson, the part that I am changing actually does not effect, is not affected by the changes we are making today because you already, that’s in the interlock. The interlock that you’re talking about, the blow machine, you already have a 0.00 tolerance. We’ve been operating that for years and it just, it prevents you from starting

WFDWXX [0:00:00.0] The car and I believe it also notifies DMV if you attempted to start your car without phone system. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yells to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yelled. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So the machine that is in the car doesn’t, will not register 00. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Our law currently reads that you have, you cannot have any <00:28>alcohol in your system for these two other subdivisions. My understanding is that DMV has chosen to send that 00 to 0.02 for purposes of whether or not the car would start or whether you will be reported the DMV but that is not as far as I know in our law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more question Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yell to an additional question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do we currently have anymore than one manufacturer of these interlocks systems? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jonathan, I believe we have at least three that are state wide now that I can think of I have spoken to over the last two years because we did have Representative Faircloth and I, and Representative Jordan had an Interlock Bill last year. And I think I have spoke to at least three manufacturers at that time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Hardister rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if, the Bill Sponsor yells for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yell to the gentleman from Guildford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative, I like the bill and I plan I’m voting for, but I have a question, in light of the question that was raised by Representative Johnson a moment ago. Was there any consideration instead of going to 0 to go to 0.02? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you for the question, there are actually was a debate last time and what we found was—if you have seen the bill I introduced when it originally came out it was very short because I only laid out what I was changing but we found that was already a 00 under the Section B and C of each one. So we just trying to make it consistent, when the bill went over to the Senate last time there was talk about making the 0.02 that I understand DMV is using, putting that actually in the law and all three subsections but that was never done. And as far as I know there was never any bill language offered to that in fact. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Jackson a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yelled to the gentleman from Wake? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do yell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson, as I understood your explanation your bill or the bill will before us is not really affecting the section where people have the interlock anyway. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, I apologize I would probably misspoke…So currently, when you get an interlock, when you are required to an interlock because you have a prior ??, and this was your second conviction or you blew 0.15 or higher. So you could be required to have an interlock that this would change the tolerance on that, you are supposed to have an interlock for a year, some people don’t use that as their limits traveling privilege a year, they just go a year without having their licenses, and when they go back to DMV, DMV will still put the interlock restriction for one year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 31 on its second reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam Berger the gentleman wish to be recorded on this vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 110 having voted in the affirmative and four in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 31 passes its second reading and will without objection be read at third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If no the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 31 on its third reading, so many favoring the passage of this bill will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those oppose will say no. The ayes have it and the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 31 passes its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 32, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jackson, the House Bill 32: A bill to be entitled an act to amend… [0:05:00.3] [End of file…]

[SPEAKER CHANGES] Offense of visually impaired driving. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Wake, Representative Jackson is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I apologize to everybody for monopolizing all your time, and I promise you nobody wants to get out of here more than I do on this particular day. In 2013, 33% of our fatal accidents in North Carolina involved an impaired driver. There was 428 DWI fatalities. That was up from the 365 number killed in 2011. If you start looking at the statutes, one state in particular stands out in your mind and that's Utah because they have the lowest fatality rate of about 20%. They are also one of the only states that makes a second offense of DWI a felony. However a majority of the states make that trigger on the third offense. Our current statute makes DWI a felony on the fourth offense and only if it's your fourth offense in ten years. We earlier today had a long caucus meeting and I was bored. Had a civil file that I was working on and so I have a gentleman's driving record here. He basically seriously injured a client of mine. He's a, my client's been in a wheelchair about nine months now. Another person involved in the accident was killed. The gentleman-the defendant had five prior DWIs on his record. However, if you look at when he got them, '92, 2000, 2000, 2007, 2011. He never hit that four times in ten years, so they were never a felony. And he was never taken off, so what my bill originally simply did was move that fourth trigger to a third. Now last session, on the same day, just by chance, Representative Hurley, Representative Baskerville, Representative McNeill had a bill, and I'll let them explain it if they so choose tonight the reason before that. It would change it, instead of saying in ten year to saying in your lifetime and saying after you hit the habitual mark, every DWI you've got after that would be another habitual, another felony for ?? more time. And so I spoke to Representative Hurley before the committee meeting and I asked her if she was going to introduce that bill again and she had not made her decision. She said she would be happy for me to take her language and put on my bill and so that's what we've done. So basically you have both versions of the statutes, or from the bills from last time in this one. There was some physical impact, of course they always come up with a null estimate because they don't know exactly. I can tell you they told me last time this bill would apply to 124 offenders. I don't know if that sounds like a lot to you or not, but the way I view it is that's another 124 people that would be off the roads and not driving around, with the likelihood to kill one of us. One of the questions I have gotten about the bill is how does this impact Laura's Law from last session, I believe. The explanation I got from staff is this bill does not change or contradict Laura's Law in any way. Nor should it. There's some offenders who would currently fall under the aggravated level one sentence of Laura's Law that could be charged with DWI but it does not replace the A1 sentence. The way I view this bill is it gives the district attorney a hammer, and they often use that. People in here who practice criminal law know that they use this all the time in our habitual felon law. What they'll say is you can plead guilty to the misdemeanor now and I won't indict you as a habitual felon. Well if the DA had this power, then they could charge you with habitual felon DWI. When someone came in with a record that first court date they could say you're an A1 sentence, you take your one year under Laura's Law and if you don't, we're going to indict you as a fel-a habitual felon and you're going to spend more time in jail than that. I just wanted to point out just, and again I appreciate you bearing with me. I want to ask you to think about what does it say about our law that currently you have to have four offenses in ten years to be considered a felon. I want you to think about some of the crimes that I know off the top of my head are felonies. If you walk out of the chamber today and someone slaps you, that's a felony. It's an assault on a legislative officer, it's a felony. Representative Stam handed out something last week about mortgage fraud. You look in there, first offense, that's a felony. You steal $1000 worth-$1001 worth of property or write a worthless check for more than $2000 that's a felony. Your second

Offense of possessing a slot machine, that's a felony. But, so what does it say to people that you have to have four offenses of driving on our roads while impaired, possibly risking their lives and our lives, and we wait till that point to make it a felony? I'd ask you to consider making this small change for me. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Randolph, Representative Hurley, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak briefly on the bill, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. We ran this bill last year because of a television station interview. A man had been in prison for over ten years and when he got out he'd already had three DWIs and he had killed three people, and he was in prison, they had given him 40 years but he only served like 17. So, of course, he didn't get a ticket for DWI, he couldn't, he was in prison. But when he got out, he got another one, and they didn't look back, so he was still, this was just a misdemeanor. So, this will take care of that problem, so we need you to vote yes on this, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And, actually to ask a question of the bill's sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from Craven? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to make sure I'm understanding what I'm reading here. So, when they get to third conviction is actually when they can be hit for being a habitual offender, correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Because they have to already have two previous? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir, it would be like baseball, third strike and you're out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 32 on its second reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 111 having voted in the affirmative, and 3 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 32 passes its second reading, and will, without objection be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The 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 for House Bill 32 on its third reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed will say no. They ayes have it, and the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 32 passes its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 59, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Faircloth, Stam, Glazier, House Bill 59, a bill to be entitled and act to clarify the admissibility of reports for forensic and chemical analysis. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Guilford, Representative Faircloth is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the House. This bill continues the wrestling match we've had for years with the backlog of tests, forensic tests and chemical analysis in our labs, and court rulings, of course, guarantees that a person can be faced by their accuser, and we're not gaining a lot of ground trying to make up the time that we lost and consequently we have people who have cases that are three or four years old waiting to be, still waiting on the evidence to be presented. This bill is not designed to cure all of that, but it is another, as they say, a tool in the box for us to help us a little bit. Basically what this says is that there's several statutes in current law that allow the admission of a statement or a report of forensic or chemical analysis in the criminal trial, either without the personal appearance of the analyst or with the analyst being allowed to testify remotely. These admissions are allowed only after notice by the State of the intent to admit the statement or report, and failure by the defendant to file an objection to the admission of the report. What this bill does, would amend each of those statutes, allowing admission of a statement or report of forensic or chemical analysis by clarifying that if the State provides the required notice and the defendant does not object within the required time, then the objection shall be deemed waived. Now, this does not in any way take away a person's rights to be faced by that analyst if so desired. But if the defense for that accused

PFJTAG [0:00:00.0] The report is acceptable to them rather than having the analyst traveler and testify then this is maybe possible by this bill. I’m sure if you have technical questions that the two fine Attorneys that work with me on this bill would be glad to answer those, my job was putting people in jail and not getting them out. So I will look at those answers, I hope you support the bill, thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Steven rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if one of the fine cosponsors of the bill would answer a legal question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the lady would please direct your question to a particular member… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who were the cosponsors? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Cumberland yell to the lady from Surry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Glazier. My question is we have been sort of talking some of the same issue in the Courts Commission and one of our concerns was will it be legally sufficient to dean that they have waved it or not we better of to have them affirmatively way that instead of treating their reviews or to respond as or are we violating some constitutionals concerns there? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. Thank you for the question Representative Stevens and I think this came from the Lab Attorneys to look at and then we went back with staff and looked at Melinda’s DS which is the Supreme Court case; this complies with the language of Melinda’s DS, I’m not sure the statue previously did and this is to make sure that we actually are right on the language of the Court. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of either one of the bill sponsors… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t know everybody get up at one time. Does the gentleman from Wake yell to the gentleman from Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, Representative Stam and I just have a question regarding how this is actually gonna work, this is my understanding from reading it that there is gonna be a 10 day notice presumably by mail to either to defendants, council, or to the defendants themselves, is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That part is not changed; yes there is notice and demand, yes. What this does—this was requested by Judge Joe John with the State Crime Lab apparently somebody in Virginia raised a question if they did not have these extra words in their statue so they treated it like a loophole, so he asks us to close the loophole. For those who saw, “Man for All Seasons”, you are old enough to see that, right. The ?? Law is silence gives a cent, so here if he ?? that’s a cent. You all are really young if you haven’t seen that movie. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yell to an additional question from the gentleman from Durham? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and again Representative Stam and I understand the part in there, if the notice is attempted to be served on the Attorney or the defendant there is no mechanism required to show proof that they in fact served in order for this to operate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, it’s mostly civil rather than criminal but whenever we serve things we conclude a certificate of service of how we served it. So if it’s in regular order then it’s assumed to be correct and if the notice was not received and the other person says, “I didn’t get it. ” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yells to an additional question? He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And do you have an opinion as that of five day response time they didn’t have it after whenever that item is served? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do we have lots of five day response times in court, sometimes we have three days, sometimes seven but five is plenty. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I don’t have an opposition to it, I’m just concerned about actual working of it after we put it into process and it certainly seems there maybe some concerns there regarding a timeframe be and a lot. So although, I support the concept I just had a little concern about how it was gonna actually work in process and I don’t know if someone has some of the experience with similar situated requirement and what the response has bee but that’s my only concern. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a problem with this; we guaranteed certain rights under the constitution… [0:05:00.4] [End of file…]

institution and I didn't recall seeing anything that says if you sign this paper or if you don't sign this paper, that your going to lose your right. Those are citizens going into trial or going into court and we're telling them if you don't do this we're taking away your right. I think it should be the other way around. I think if they don't respond then they should be able to face the accuser which would be the forensic analysis or whatever you want to call em. But I don't think we should be taking a right just because someone didn't fill out a piece of paper. And so for that reason I'm not going to vote for this bill and I ask you not to as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake representative Stam rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the contrary every single constitutional right that we have can be waived by the person. The only exception is you cannot sell yourself into slavery. Every other one can be waived. If I am the government and I send a condemnation lawsuit to representative Cleveland and I tell him in that lawsuit what we're taking and he does nothing about it, and he doesn't demand a jury which he has a constitutional right to do, he has to accept the deposit and he doesn't get a jury. There's nothing unusual about this we have to do this because of Malindas Diaz which has the affect of keeping our forensic analyst on the road and sitting in the backs of court rooms instead of analyzing biological evidence. That's why the backlog is there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenberg representative Cunningham rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker I would like to ask the bills sponsor a question please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you could name him, if you want representative Glazier he's right behind you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Cumberland yield to the lady from Mecklenberg? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. The remote testimony authorization I've never seen that before I don't know if everybody knows what it is. But I would like to know what that is and what's required for that authorization. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes thank you for the question representative. The remote authorization was passed last year that's the substance of the bill. To allow that capacity this bill is just dealing strictly with the capacity on the objection to the analyst. Remote capacity exists in some pilot districts not that many yet. It is a technology we're trying to advance there are regs that are set up right now for the pilot that are in the pilot bill in that the department has put in place. So I can't tell you which of the districts have the pilot yet but there are very few that are there. There was some money allowed in last years budget to create a few of those pilots I'm not sure again whether, I don't think Meck is one of them. My recollection is that Forsyth may have been one of the first ones being looked at representative Faircloth may know that. But that's what it is for and it's exactly well I'll speak on the bill I'm just answering your question I do want to speak to the bill in a minute. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven representative Speciale rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My comments had nothing to do with whether we should or shouldn't be able to waive our rights we're free men and free women we should be able to do what we want to do. That wasn't the question and that wasn't the issue I brought up. And I can also understand the need to do something here over tying up all the all of our forensic scientists. I understand that. But because somebody forgets something or neglects to do something and that is an affirmation that they should waive their right, I think this is the wrong way to go. I think when a man signs that paper and says I waive my right then he has the right to do that. But anything short of that falls on the state and not on the backs of those going to court. People should not lose their right because they didn't fill out a piece of paper or because they forgot to do something. If they're going to give away that right they have a right to do so but it needs to be an intentional give away let me sign this form given away my right. If I ignore it and I don't do it by a certain date then that should say the state has to provide the scientist there in the courtroom. It should fall on the state. Man shouldn't lose his right for that. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph representative

Rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Stam a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from Randolph? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you would look on page 3 at line 3, 4 and 5 where it says the state notifies the defendant at least 15 days before the proceeding at which evidence will be used of its intentions to introduce a report into evidence under this section and provides a copy of the report to the defendant, would that be the notice that Representative Hall was talking about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s right Representative McNeill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. To a couple of the good points that were raised, first, I agree completely with Representative Stam’s point. There is a huge problem, and most on the floor know, with SBI analysts and the capacity to reach these cases, and so the first is sort of the policy issue and problem issue. There is a desperate need to keep these folks and the scientists in the lab instead of traveling district to district, but even that, Representative Speciale makes the point that if that was really needed and there was a confrontation clause issue that would be required. The issue here is number one, the court has made it clear that the confrontation clause allows this procedure, in part because of the lab problem across the country. So this complies with the law, but here’s the second thing that isn’t said in the bill but is really important to know to get from Representative Speciale’s point, nothing in this bill prohibits the defendant from subpoening the analyst on their own. They may do that if they want the analyst there all the want and they would have to comply with that and there is not a problem with that. This is where the state is going to use this evidence and says do you really need the analyst and if you’re willing to waive it let’s do that so we can all get through this without delaying the case solely for the purposes of delay by having to do this with the analyst being there when you really don’t need the analyst. So any defendant who wants the analyst can subpoena them there. This doesn’t stop that in any way. This is to get at what really could be an abuse of the system and a delay tactic that’s used when the analyst really isn’t there and the only thing that’s gonna happen when the analyst finally shows up is the defendant’s gonna plead, and that’s really what this is trying to get that. It’s doing it consistent with the confrontation clause, consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling on this and we’ll have to see how this works out, but I think it should answer the problem of anybody who really wants the analyst there and needs them can absolutely get them there and will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the bill. I was gonna ask a question but I’ll shorten this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. The point I was trying to make and, again, I agree with the spirit of what’s trying to be done here to make evidence available without the testifying technician or analyst being in court in person and it’s something we dealt with with the Courts Commission four years ago, and I chaired the Courts Commission and we talked to the SBI director at the time, etc, but the problem I see and it may not be a problem but the concern I have is you get notice within 15 days when normally you have 30 days notice of what’s going to happen with your trial or witnesses or whatever and then you have 10 days really within which if you’re either the defendant or the responding attorney to respond because the notice of your response has to be with the court five days prior to the hearing data, so you really have a 10 day window within which either the defendant himself or the defendant goes and tries to find an attorney if one was not already appointed by the court or else it automatically functions to deny you that right. So I’m just saying that that appears to be a concern. It appears to be a short period. It may not be and again I asked that question previously to someone who has some experience with it, so I just point that out for your information. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 59 on its second reading. So many favoring the passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Representative Haines, does the gentleman wish to be recorded on this vote? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote

The vote, 110 having voted in the affirmative and 4 in the negative the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 59 passes its second reading and will without objection be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The 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 for House Bill 59 on its third reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those opposed will say no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] They ayes have it and the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 59 passes its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Messages from the Senate. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, it is ordered that the message be sent to the House of Representatives with the information that the Senate failed to concur in Senate Bill 20, House Committee Substitute, fifth edition, a bill to be entitled an act to update the reference of the Internal Revenue Code to decouple from certain provisions of the Federal Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014, to modify the Motor Fuels Tax Rate and to make certain changes in the Department of Transportation for the 2014-2015 fiscal year. Respectfully, Sarah Lange, Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. Pages, we would ask the pages to come forward please. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, regarding House Bill 32 I wish to be recorded as aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye on House Bill 32. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose, after notices and announcements. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] the right time or the right place? [gavel bangs] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pages when the, we want to first welcome you hear and I would ask, the clerk is going to call your name and introduce you so that those of us here will know who you are this week. We’re glad to have you here. When you hear the clerk call your name please step forward so we’ll know who you are. The clerk will introduce the pages, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Melody Armisted, Reshonda Blue, Cort Church, Miles Hunt, Austin Johnson, Josh Kirk, David Mayhem, Abbie Martin, Gates McConnell, Brianna Moore, Kiara Newsome, Avery Rossinbaum, Mary Stuart Slone, Claire Stevens, Griffin Sullivan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pages, again I want to welcome you here with us today. You’ll hopefully be able to see a lot of interesting meetings both in the session and then also the committee meetings. So we know you’ve taken time away from your school and your family to be here, so we’re glad to have you here and I would ask my colleagues to join me in welcoming you here with us this week. [applause] For what purpose does the, and you may return to your posts now, for what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Michaux rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] A point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may speak to a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House. As a participant in some of the historic movement that occurred in this country, I could not let this time pass without having to remind you of something. Yesterday, 50 years ago yesterday, 600 people gathered in Brown Chapel Church in Selma, AL in order to march to Montgomery to protest the fact that they could not vote as the majority community could. They got to the Edmond Pettis bridge and were met by the Alabama Highway Patrol, the Sheriff’s deputies, and at that time they were beaten back with billy clubs, with tear gas and ordered to leave. It got to the point that even the sheriff

Refused to call or hand alliance to those who were hurt. On two days later, there was another march going from Brown Chapel in Selma to Montgomery. That march was stopped again with the marchers turned back. On two weeks later, after an outcry from all across the world and all across the country, thousands of people gathered, 67,000 people gathered in Montgomery to carry out that march. It took them three days to do it, it was one of the most historic moments in that period of time, because it brought to floor some of the things about the way citizens were being treated in the country. President Lyndon Johnson got the members of Congress and he introduced a bill, the Voting Rights Act of 1965 which was signed into law some five months after Bloody Sunday, and it took away some of the restrictions like literacy tests that were given at the time. And the reason I speak to this, I can recall John Lewis from the event rough in, an African American named John Edwards, and myself going into Eastern North Carolina trying to get folks to register to vote. And we were turned away, not by white folks, but by black folks, simply because they were afraid to go register to vote, afraid because they might lose their jobs, and we understood that, but we still tried. And as a result, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen, you have before you now people who would not be here had it not been for the action that was taken in 1965 and that historic Act that was passed. I mention all of this simply to say to you that it appears to me that we have morphed from the 19th century to the 21st century, because all the progress that has been made has been passed over. I looked at the Viva Act which was passed last year. For those that don't know that, that was House Bill 589 that put back into effect some of those things. It was an affront to me because I was the one who put in legislation that loosened up registration in this State, it's still loose, but there's other factors in there. And so we're here, again, about to repeat history, and I want to leave you with the words of my mentor, my friend, Martin King, Jr., what he said on the steps of Montgomery, the Alabama capital in Montgomery on March 25th of 1965. He said, and I quote, 'the end we seek is a society that can live with its conscience. I know you are asking today, how long will it take? I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long.' [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Alamance, Representative Riddell, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman may speak to a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Colleagues, I ask you to join me in welcoming my seatmate, Colonel Chris Whitmire, back from many days in Reserve Duty and working with our National Guard, good to have you back. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Alamance, Representative Ross, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]A point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman may speak to a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. On Friday morning, March the 6th, the Ross clan added yet another grandson

Rank and Sidney Ross-Williams, 8 pounds 5 ounces, 21 inches and mother and baby are doing fine. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Congratulations. [applause] I noticed you were looking a little more grandfatherly today, so that explains it. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarras, Representative Pittman rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may speak to a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, I know all of you have been praying for me and I appreciate it. I wanted to let you know I went to the doctor on Friday and got a pretty good report. It was the low grade cancer that he expected. He felt pretty sure he’d gotten it all. It’s not going to require any chemo or radiation. I will have to go back every 3 months for about 3 years to get checked out but it could’ve been a whole lot worse and I’m grateful it’s as good as it is and appreciate your support. Thank you. [applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Congratulations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The full Appropriations Committee will meet tomorrow jointly with the Senate to hear a presentation of the governor’s proposed budget from the state budget director, Lee Roberts. If you want to bring your budget document, if you want to have a budget document there to look at you’ll need to bring the one that was put in your mailboxes. You’ll have to bring that tomorrow morning if you want to have that to make reference to, so tomorrow morning full Appropriations plus any of you folks in the Finance Committee that want to come sit in on that you’re welcome, 8:30 to 10-10:30, 643. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk is recognized to make announcement as to some new committee appointments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speaker Moore makes the following committee announcements, Representative Farmer-Butterfield appointed to Aging and removed from Pensions and Retirement, Representative Holley appointed to Pensions and Retirement and removed from Aging. Representative Luebke appointed to Education K-12. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenberg, Representative Carney rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Well, I wasn’t going to stand up on the floor and make a double announcement. You got an email today, but I got a text that this young lady might be listening. My husband and I were blessed with our 12 - a dozen - grandchildren yesterday. Our little Kim, our little May was born yesterday morning in Charlotte weighing a resounding 10 pounds 5.5 ounces. Welcome Miss May. [applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Randolph, Representative Hurley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a moment of personal privilege please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to speak to a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Friday, March the 6th our Randolph County Color Guard celebrated their 25th anniversary of serving veterans by being at their funerals and doing the military honors for them. They did over 500 last year. This year they’ve already done 160. The governor proclaimed Friday, March the 6th as their day and I just remembered we’re losing them pretty quickly and they have right now 83 members and it’s hard to get new members, so just remember them and if you can serve any of these it would be wonderful. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Carterette, Representative McElraft rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Environment meeting that was going to take place at 1 o’clock tomorrow will take place at 1:30 due to 7 of our members being on the Agricultural Committee, so we will be there from 1:30 until probably around 2:30 or 2:20 so we can get here in time for session. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Johnston, Representative Langdon rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As you just heard, there was a change that was a conflict with Ag and we have Commissioner Fotress tomorrow. We’d like for all of the Ag members to be there. We will be out so that we can go to Environment cause there are 6 members of the Ag committee that are on environment

Need all people to go to environment at that time. We also need you to be there for Commissioner Fottress so we appreciate you being there and being on time cause we will start on time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices or announcements? If not, the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Lewis is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker, subject to messages from the Senate, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, I move that the House now adjourn to reconvene on Tuesday, March 10th at 2:30 PM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis moves, seconded by Representative Langdon, that the House adjourn subject to messages from the Senate, re-referral of bills and resolutions and appointment of conferees to reconvene Tuesday, March 10th at 2:30 PM. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed, no. The ayes have it and the House stands adjourned. [gavel bangs] [blank audio] [SPEAKER CHANGES] On motion of Representative Lewis on House Bill 566, state health plan rehire retiree eligibility and additional referral to the Committee on Appropriations is added. On House Bill 72, SOG pile up project standards, an additional referral to Appropriations is added. On House Bill 78, Enact Medical Cannabis Act, additional referral to Finance and then a third referral to Appropriations is added.