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 5, 2014 | Chamber | Proceedings

Full MP3 Audio File

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. Without objection, Rule 12 D is suspended. The Sergeant at Arms will close the doors. The prayer will be offered by Representative Brian Brown. Members and visitors in the gallery, please stand, and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, although I open today’s prayer at session today, I pray for you every day. And I pray that we find peace and direction and that we all act and lead in accordance with God’s word. Let us all remember that a house divided against itself cannot stand. So, therefore, let us be united in righteousness for the sake of this great state. Let us pray. Oh, God, from whom all powers come. By whose divine will all must abide. We thank you for our liberties and our freedoms, for our opportunities, and for our privileges. We beg of you to bless, assist, and enlighten our leaders in this great state. May we prove worthy of the confidence placed in us by our fellow citizens. May we be just and upright in our thinking, honest in our actions, and ever be guided by a true conscience in the legislation we propose and vote upon. Forgive us for our mistakes and selfish tendencies, and prepare us for our good deeds for an eternal union with you. Through Christ Our Lord, 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] Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the Journal for Wednesday, June 4, 2014 has been examined and found to be correct.. I move its approval as read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the Journal for June 4 be approved as read. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The Journal’s approved as written. Petitions for memorials, papers addressed to the General Assembly of the House. Representative Horn, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I want to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, members of the House, I want to take a moment just as we begin this session today to remind you that in 24 hours from now, and actually in 7 hours from now and 70 years D-Day began. Seven hours from now it’ll be about 10, 11 o’clock tonight, and a group of American paratroopers boarded a C-47 and headed to Normandy. Group known then as the Filthy 13. They later became famous as the Dirty Dozen. Led by a fella named Jake McNiece, also known as Jake McNasty. Jake’s still around, I’m happy to say. Not doing so hot. Most of his comrades are not around. This past week we lost, in fact, two huge personalities. Last Sunday we lost Mary Soames, Winston Churchill’s last surviving child. Mary was in uniform in World War II. In company, not only was she a battery commander for an anti-aircraft battery, she was also, accompanied her father on his many trips around the world, trying to bring peace to this world. And last night, I’m told, Chester Nez went home to God. Chester was the last surviving original Navajo code talker. Got to know Chester over the last few years. Quite a character. He loved the Boston Red Socks. Loved baseball. But loved this nation with every fiber of his body. So, over the next 24 hours, I hope you take a minute now and then to think about all those guys jumping out of airplanes, or coming over the side of the Higgins boats as they hit the beaches of Normandy, Utah, Omaha, Sword, Juno, Gold. Lots of guys, and thank God for them, ‘cause that’s how we’re here today.

I appreciate this, Mr. Speaker, and I hope you all will remember those folks today and this weekend. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair would like to extend a welcome and a thank you to the nurse of the day. The nurse of the day is Alice Hill from Goldsboro. Alice, thank you for your service. [applause] Reports of standing committees and permanent subcommittees. Representative Tim Moore is recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tim Moore for the rules calendar operations of the House, Senate Bill 78 amends state contract review laws, favorable is House Committee Substitute, unfavorable is the Senate Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Committee Substitute will be re-referred to Judiciary C. The Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable calendar. Representative Stone and Warren are recognized to send forth committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stone and Warren for the government committee, House Bill 1134, Cleveland County Road Assessment Criteria, favorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1070, Town of Duck Imminent Domain, favorable and serially referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1155, Pinehurst Annexation, favorable and re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1218, City of Monroe Supervision of Attorney, favorable and referred to Judiciary Subcommittee A. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary Subcommittee A. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1242, Bladen/Columbus Tax Payment Before Recordation, favorable and serially referred to Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry is recognized to send forth subcommittee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry for Commerce and Job Development, Senate Bill 101, WC/Inflation Indexing for Organ Injury, serially referred to Commerce and Job Development Subcommittee on Biotechnology and Healthcare. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion pertaining to today's calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, move that House Bill 1092, short title Enforce Payment of Criminal Mediation Fee, be removed from today's calendar and calendared for Tuesday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Calendar, House Bill 230. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 230, a bill to be entitled an act to clarify provisions of the Read to Achieve Act and school performance, grades, and to expand the testing window for one year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bryan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I would like to make a motion that we concur with Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 230. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, you have before you a concurrence from the Senate related to the Read to Achieve bill passed last year. Read to Achieve has had broad bi-partisan support. Governors like former Governor Hunt, Governor Jeb Bush and others, was passed just requiring what we know to be good for students to be able to read by the end of third grade. In the implementation of that process, there are always needed RTA changes.

Some of which have happened in other states. Some of which you see before you. This implementation is always imperfect. I imagine that many of you have received emails like I have and let me run through very briefly some of the clarifying changes that this bill makes. First is provides flexibility for local LEAs. It actually allows LEAs to use some of their own assessments. It also provides with respect to the summer reading camps many of you have received emails or heard from your superintendents that the time window for the reading camps was not ideal. It actually provides that the 72 hours can be integrated as the LEAs see fit as long as it’s over a three week period. At least a three week period. It can be longer than that. It also provides for alternative for student reading portfolios to allow for broader reading portfolios than presently allowed. It also creates broader exemptions for students with IEPs which has been probably a number of you have received emails from parents concerned about their IEPs. Lastly the proposed substitute proposed concurrence provides for a recalculation of the A through F performance grades from a ten point scale to a fifteen point scale. There are a lot of technical issues in the amendments that you see before you. I’ve sat and talked with folks about a number of scenarios. You may have questions and Mr. Speaker in that regard I’d ask to have staff available with me for questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff will be available. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Mr. Speaker. And so I feel a little bit like Paul Harvey used to say and now for the rest of the story. I agree with exactly what Representative Bryan said. I think actually the bill is the starting point to do a good job or starting job of dealing with a rushed provision that was in budget last year that has caused enormous problems in the school system for third graders, third grade parents, third grade teachers and I think so I don’t disagree with anything that’s in the bill. The problem is that is does very little to deal with the clear problems that we got all the phone calls on and all the messages on. All we’re going to do is get them from the next set of parents if we concur because there’s some things we can do that doesn’t change the program and actually still keeps the program whether we agree with it or disagree with it that if we didn’t concur in conference that we might could get in. So while this does some things of moving from six weeks to three on the camp and creates a better definition for EC kids with regard extend to now that extend to was no longer available. I agree with that. Here’s what it doesn’t do. So for the portfolio for all those kids who are in under the portfolio with regard to the number of assessments all of you know that there are 12 standards. It requires three tests to pass so you essentially have this 36 tests mode going. So one thing could be simply to reduce that students only have to pass from 3 to 2. That would reduce the number of tests that were available. A second thing we could do would say if a student gets an 80 or a 90 out of a 100 on one of those assessments for a standard maybe what we ought to do is say they don’t need to take the other test. They passed the standard and let’s move on. Instead of saying you can get a 100 or 90 or 80 on that first assessment but you still got to take if you’re doing that portfolio the second and the third so you know the standard. That doesn’t make any sense to me. We don’t do that in any other part of their schooling and why do we want to do that here so there’s ways to reduce the testing regime that might be available. Third, a big communications problem. So last year parents weren’t informed about what was really required. As you know from your email and my email districts were doing different things and saying different things. No consistent message was being put out. This has a provision in it that principals shall communicate what’s going on in the regime to their parents. That’s great but it doesn’t say when. We ought to tell them that at least within the first

The first thirty or forty-five days of school, you got to do this, so parents know what’s coming. You can’t be telling them in January or February what’s happening. So it’s a minor change, but it’s a big change in terms of making sure we get the info out and get the complaints handled early rather than have what happened this past year. Fourth, let’s assume that you have a student who isn’t. The teacher knows, the parents know, and sadly the child knows, they’re not going to pass this assessment, these standards. They, they can’t. It’s just, they’re not going to. This bill doesn’t change the fact that the system is still required to put him through the test. Put him through the standards. And so, instead, why not have a provision in there that says, you know, at some point the teacher’s judgment and consultation with the parents would be, if they are not going to pass it, why hurt the child, deflate the child even more by making them try the test and standards. Let the teacher and the parents combined allow them to exempt out and go straight to the reading camps. We know that’s what’s going to happen anyway, and that way we are not hurting the kid. It seems to me, doesn’t change the program but is an easy fix that could be in there, and there are several others that I think that people could talk about including what the parental responsibility is here. All of those could be fixed in a conference committee pretty quickly assuming there is an agreement to do it. At a minimum, we ought to talk about it. And I guess my last point is, it’s pretty substantive issue. Never this comeback, this provision, this whole bill is on the calendar. It hasn’t gone back to education. We’d never talked about it. There’s been no discussion of it. That’s not fair to the parents. That’s not fair to the kids. It’s not fair to what’s happening because this is a pretty big issue, and I would suggest at a minimum we ought to have at least heard this in education. Maybe we could’ve worked some of this out. I think we at least owe it to ourselves to conference until next week. There is some exigency to the bill, I know, with regarding the reading camps, but it isn’t going to change over the weekend, and Lord knows we are doing everything else over the weekend. So it would strike me that we should not concur conference and come back in next week with a conference report. So I would oppose the motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker. I, too, feel that we should not concur on this motion. The reason is that we all agree that students ought to read proficiently and efficiently by third grade, and we can get this done. We just simply need to do it very carefully and with deliberate speed. We do have conference imminently approaching us. There are some tweaks in place here that will make this a much more efficient bill. The notice to parents ought to be specific. Parents ought to know early on in the school year. You can’t wait until it’s too late to rectify the deficiencies if you really want to make a difference as to whether the students pass or fail. So that’s easy for us to put into the legislation as I see it. So why not? Let’s not concur. Let’s place this in conference and get it right. I urge us not to concur at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Myer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I arise to speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, before joining you for this short session, I spent my last sixteen years working in the public schools, and my wife is, in fact, today, spending her day at her elementary school working on assessment of third graders as part of this program. I would like to speak against the motion because I believe that this bill is based on legislation that hasn’t been fully debated by this House and deserves to be heard in full and committee before we make a decision on what to do. There are important changes that are introduced in the legislation before us today, but they don’t address three fundamental problems with the Read to Achieve Law. The first is the retention of third graders. We all know that students who don’t read by the time they get to the end of third grade are more likely to drop out of high school, but what you may not know is that students who are retained once have a fifty percent chance fifty percent chance of dropping out later on, and students who have been retained once in elementary school are more likely to be retained a second time later in their educational career. If you’re retained twice, you have a ninety percent chance likelihood of dropping out. In elementary school there are many alternative ways to helping students learn to read besides putting the punishment of retention on them. The second fundamental problem is that

I mean it's not really a partnership if we are-- if there are-- I hear representative, her concerns, why is it $250,000? [change of speaker] That's excellent question. The requirement that came out of the edge committee was actually a ten million dollar threshold before the contract got entered into. That's a high bar for-- really no knowledge of whether it's going to actually get achieved in a timely fashion to be effective. And so what we did, before contract could get entered into, they have to raise a quarter million dollars. There is an annual fundraiser requirement in the first year, that quarter million plus a million, and then annual fundraiser requirements of 1.25 million dollars a year over a five year contract period. And so the fundraiser requirement is basically going to be spread out over a fiver period, instead of a ten million dollars before you ever enter into the contract, its 6 million dollars over a five year period, which is more reproducible. And from a public funds perspective, I think that this entity is going to operate so efficiently, that I think that there's going to be less public fund obligation, an this is my personal opinion and this is based on conversations with the secretary, but-- just because the Department of Commerce gets funded at a certain level today, doesn't mean that entire amount of funding is going to be passed through to the public-private partnership. That's the goal, is to de-obligate the state from public funds and we're allowing this partnership to do things in a more efficient way without having additional public funds extended. [change of speaker] The question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1031, as amended on its second reading. All in favor vote I, all opposed vote no, the court will open the vote. The court a-lot machine record the vote 73 having voted the in the affirmative, 41 in the negative. The House Committee substitute to House Bill 1031 as amended is past its second reading and without objection. [change of speaker] Objection [change of speaker] Objection having been raised, the bill will be ordered and grossed and place on the calender for June 10. Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [change of speaker] Mr. speaker sometimes it takes me a few minutes to process things like amendments, and after having given it some thought I'd like to have my vote changed on the Glacier amendment 2 and I. [change of speaker] The gentlemen will be recorded as having voted I on the Glazier Amendment. Ladies and gentlemen for your planning purposes next week Monday will be a no-vote session--skeleton session at four PM. Tuesday we anticipate session being at four PM, and we do anticipate a calender to dispose of. Wednesday we will come in at eight AM but purely to gavel and to recess so that we can do re-referral of bills, I believe at that time we will have to do referral from appropriations to finance and back. And then on Thursday is everybody's favorite day, it's the day that we take up the budget, we will begin at noon. And for your planning purposes just give this thought, depending upon how long that process goes, it normally goes eight or nine hours, we will determine whether or not we would prefer to stay over since its a two day bill and vote on midnight so that you can move on early on Friday morning, or come back early in the morning for the vote. And we will discuss that sometime on Thursday as the debate goes on. So again, four on Monday, no-vote, four on Tuesday, there will be votes, eight AM on Tuesday, there will be no votes when we gavel and it will come later in the day, if at all, and then 12 noon on Thursday. Notices and announcements, Representative Holloway please state your purpose. [change of speaker] For point of personal privilege. [change of speaker] The gentleman has [??] the House for a point of personal privilege, the House has come to order. [change of speaker] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I'm wanting to extend some birthday wishes to an individual that I come into the legislature with back in 2005. I've got a lot of respect for this individual and have always considered him a mentor. And after that ag-affair thing I thought about being a little bit mean to him, but then I realized that usually pay-back is threefold so I decided I better just stay nice. But you will wish representative Nelson Dollar happy birthday. [talking, clapping] Representative Iler please state your purpose. [change of speaker] For announcement. [change of speaker] The gentlemen has raised note for an anno--

Created the largest exodus of talented teachers in the history of our state. We should vote not to concur. We should vote no on this motion to occur, go back to conference committee, and begin to have an honest discussion at that level. We need to begin to set our goals based on the reality that we know exists. We can do this and we need to take a stand. We need to risk taking a stand on this. Please vote no on this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does Representative Bryant? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bryant, I have a question about how we're funding this. It seems from what I'm reading that either the parent can be assessed the fee or the local LEA can charge a fee. Is that what I'm understanding that, that we are not providing any money to provide for the summer camps. Is that what I'm understanding or am I not understanding that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, that's not correct. That is just with respect to students who actually do not qualify for the summer reading camp by actually not passing the test. The summer reading camp is paid for for students who do not pass. They go to summer reading camp, paid for with GA moneys. The students who would like to go to summer reading camp but who have actually passed the test, maybe they were not very far above the pass and feel like the summer reading would be helpful to their child, the LEA can charge a fee for those students. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you saying that a kindergartener or a first grader who might be deficient but does not qualify in the third grade may enter into a summer reading camp even though they're not at the third grade level but we understand they are not being proficient at first grade. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's only for third graders. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's all. That's my question, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ellmore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I urge you to vote to concur for this. And let me explain why. I have twin sons. Carter and Campbell, and they're in the third grade and they've been through the bombardment of the assessments. And really this is not an argument of the bill, this is an argument on slight technical changes to make things easier as we move forward. I'm a big believer in local control. These switches allow the locals to have more flexibility to be able to implement this program. Because you cannot go to any third grade teacher and ask them do you think that the children should not be able to read after they get out of the third grade? They'll say no, they need to be able to read. To my curriculum coordinator in Alleghany County, one of the smallest counties in the state. They're going to have 15 kids that qualify for the summer reading camp. It snows a lot in Allegheny County. So their calendar's running late. They have the exemption so they have to start school early. These children will be out of school for approximately three to four days and then will have to go through the summer camp because we tried dictating how teachers should teach through this. These corrections, technical corrections give the flexibility to our local systems to be able to do what they need to do. If we don't, it's going to be very troublesome for many of your districts according to their size, according to the number of kids that don't qualify, so there is urgency to the bill. I appreciate the arguments of my colleagues on the other side, I really do because I understand where you're coming from. Right now with this piece of legislation, this is not the time or place to argue it. That's something down the road because if we don't do something now, we're going to have major problems happening in about three weeks. So I urge you to vote to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. And I recognize the arguments that are being made but I think one has to look at a couple points. First the bill does have a few good things in, I agree with that. But Representative Jeter's comment that takes 70% because then I understand that if it were. But in fact the bill solves about 20% of the problem. It's about 80% that's still a problem. And so that's the first point. The second, this idea that there's no guarantee and I fully understand the comments made by my colleagues who deal more than I do with their colleagues on the senate side, and their concern. Except that everyone knows where the signature program is here. We are not leaving this session in all of the

Should know that, without it some fixed to portions of this bill. Because there's already a commitment on the senate side to do that. And we know the blow back that's going to happen yet again if we don't do some things. I think at some point we owe it to ourselves to send it back and try to conference. And the worse case scenario is by the middle of next week they won't sit conferees. They won't get any further, but this body at least gets to say, we've tried. We set out the problems. We've tried to identify the solutions. We've done the best we can. We can't say that right now. We really can't. We haven't had an education committee meeting on it. We've haven't tried to send it back. We never got a full say in this bill to begin with. But that philosophic decision is done. My concern is over fixing some of the huge testing problems that exist in the bill and I can't for the life of me see why 5 or 6 days of trying to fix a few more things hurts anyone in this body anymore. We may end up in exactly the same place, but I am very confident that the worst that could happen is we end up with this same bill, we reconsider our decision and pass it. The best that could happen is that we might actually help parents and kids a little bit more on some of these testing issues and I again would encourage us not to concur and to actually try to fix this for a few more days. Thank you. [SPEAKER] Representative Fulghum, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER] A question for Representative Bryan. [SPEAKER] Representative Bryan, do you yield? [SPEAKER] I yield. [SPEAKER] He yields. [SPEAKER] Representative Bryan, I would like a clarification. I'm confused on line 26, section 2 in regards to single piece of evidence may show mastery of up to 2 standards, while in the next sentence it says for each benchmark there shall be 3 examples. Is the benchmark and a standard the same thing or are we talking about different approaches here. And why would one be tested 3 times on the same subject if the previous sentence said a single piece of evidence would be sufficient? [SPEAKER] Thank you Representative Fulghum. The standard is a broader measure than the benchmark and I think that is, the benchmarks are not related to actual testing. I think those are just evidentiary pieces that are below, that relate to the standards. [SPEAKER] Follow up Mr. Chairman [SPEAKER] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER] I yield. [SPEAKER] He yields. [SPEAKER] I'm still confused, but I do agree with the remarks of some of the other speakers that it seems reasonable to have someone that's tested high on a standard or on a benchmark or whatever we're talking about. I think kids probably know when they're doing well and when they're not doing well, to then be given credit and move onto the next subject. This series of words here confuse the issue and it seems difficult here to make sense out of it. Thank you. [SPEAKER] Further discussion? Further debate? Representative Bryan, Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER] To speak to the motion. [SPEAKER] The gentleman is recognized to speak to the motion a second time. [SPEAKER] Thank you. Members I just want to re-iterate where we are in this process. Read-to-Achieve is the existing law right now. The senate passed this concurrence with these changes back to us after going through their process and some amendments were run which did not pass. This is where they ended up. We've had conversations with folks on this senate side about where we are. I think there are in addition to the time sensitive issues, which are very serious. I spent time on the phone this morning with the legal counsel at Charlotte‑Mecklenburg, I've talked with them. They are OK with these changes. From their prospective, this fixes the bulk of their immediate problems. And what we have to realize with the immediate Summer camps coming up and as another representative stated in a very short period of time. And again there's additional flexibilities provided to the LEAs for testing and a load of other things in here. So I would have to disagree with Representative Glazier when he states that only about 20% of the issues are fixed. For the bulk of students that need this, and when I taught in inner city Los Angeles for 2 years, a lot of the kids I had from low income families had very little Summer opportunity to get the reading they needed. A lot of these kids they need these reading camps. They need them now and there are.

There are on the margins there are number of kids who fall into various exemption categories. This bill does not perfectly fix all of those exemption categories, but it fixes a large number of them, and I think from the LEA's perspective they consider it a very big improvement from where we were. There is a time sensitive nature, and we have to get it passed. If we want we can have a motion to withdraw and have a house, house education meeting today, but I would recommend we move forward and vote to approve the motion. [speaker changes] Representative Brandon please state your purpose. [speaker changes] Pass the bill ?? the question [speaker changes] representative Bryan do you yield [speaker changes] I yield [speaker changes] He yields [Speaker changes] I understand it's a time sensitive measure but, if by not going through the education committee we spent, probably an hour talking about religion, and schools which probably really doesn't have a comprehensive factor on education ? maybe because it's clarifying language, but it seems odd to me that we have such policy that we could really deal with why is it tomorrow that we have to have this bill done is it gonna affect the LEA's by tomorrow or next week. I just want to understand why did this didn't go through the proper process of going through education committee and letting us vet out some of the things we need. I feel like there were probably everything that has to take place usually takes place after July first with the fiscal year. I feel like that if we have one committee meeting that all the LEA's could adjust by July first ? July Thirteenth. I may be wrong but I just don't understand why the time sensitive nature is so quick like by next week. [speaker changes] Mr. Speaker you've got the floor, yes sir. [speaker changes] I would just say that, I mean summer reading camps are starting as soon as June eleventh, today is the fifth I mean were on a very tight time frame for getting this word out to LEA's with respect to the schedule and with respect to letting various parents who have summer plans know whether or not their child fits within these exemptions. So I think it is time sensitive and we need to adopt, move to adopt the resolution. [speaker change] Further discussion further debate. If not the question before the house is the motion to concur on the senate committee substitute to house bill 230. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Seventy having voted in the affirmative, and forty three in the negative, the motion to concur passes. And the bill is ordered enrolled and sent to the governor. House bill 1080 the clerk will read. [speaker changes] House bill 1080 a bill to be entitled an act to remove certain ? property from the corporate limits of the town of Watha ? of North Carolina next. [speaker changes] Representative ? please state your purpose [speaker changes] To speak on the bill [speaker changes] Gentleman has the floor [speaker changes] I ask for you support of this, the annexation bill. [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of house bill 1080. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. All members wishing to record please do so at this time, Representative Terry. Clerk will lock the machine, and record the vote. One hundred and eleven having voted in the affirmative and three in the negative. The house bill 1080 has passed it's second reading and will remain on the calender. House bill 1069 clerk will read. [speaker changes] Committee substitute for house bill 1069 a bill to be entitled enact the employment insurance laws as recommended by the joint legislative oversight committee on unemployment insurance. ?

Of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the house. We heard this bill yesterday in the finance committee and I think there was good debate. There was, we have actually about five different sections of the bill and I'll try to go through them each one. We are first of all clarifying the confidentiality clause of what can be disclosed in the public arena and what cannot. Currently we do have a lawsuit in the Wake County courts and there is a preliminary injunction in place that we need to get that clarified just as quickly as we can in order to be in compliance with the US department of labor. Section 2, there is the provision that authorizes the division of motor vehicles to disclose the social security numbers of the division of employment security in order for them to have the records that coordinate and they're able to gather the information. The third provision authorizes the garnishment ?? for the credit card receipts when there is a current judgment in place, and that is a collection ?? of other entities in state government we're just adding the division of employment security. It eliminates the available rates of the amount of weekly benefits, we are changing that. Rephrase that, it does not eliminate it, we're changing that. In the original bill if you remember, we had a net minimum number of weeks and maximum number of weeks. It simply doesn't work the way the original bill was written. It is not a harmful provision whatsoever but it's just something that needs to be corrected. And the last piece of information is the correction that the photo ID is required before benefits are received. And with that, Mr. Speaker, I would ask for support of the bill and I'll be glad to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth his amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell moves to amend the bill on page 7, line 3 through 13 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the house. This amendment is basically geared towards the real unemployment figures that we have if you look as it says on page 7 lines 7 through 13, you'll see the adjusted rate for 5.5% through 9% and essentially what this amendment does is compresses that into 1% increments. If you will look at line 10, more than, there's 17 counties in North Carolina that have unemployment rates greater than 7.5%. And I'm certainly in one of those counties in Columbus, Robinson and Blayton. If you will look on line 10, if you were using the 7.5%, you would be entitled to 17 weeks of unemployment. The amendment goes back to where we are now at 6.2% and you would actually be entitled statewide to 13 weeks but this ?? to 17 weeks. Folks, I walk around and talk to people all over the rural areas. Especially in Southeastern North Carolina. There are not jobs out there. There are just not jobs out there. We are waiting on the Carolina comeback in the Southeast. It's not made it here yet. I'm hoping it will get there, but in the meantime these folks are hurting. They really are. Think about all those small businesses out there that depend on income from this unemployment benefit. And I'm sure I have lots of my colleagues in the house that live in those rural areas.

. . . or at least know some folks who are like that. I urge your support of this Amendment, and I recommend it to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Howard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: To debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The Lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I regret having to stand and speak against my friend's Amendment, but let me tell you what the consequences of this simple Amendment would really mean in reality. That will extend the debt for another full year, which puts our FUTA tax back in jeopardy and it also means the the surtax would continue to be paid by your employers. If you remember, when we originally had this Bill, we set a pace for the repayment of the 2.7 billion dollar debt, and that debt will be retired next July, and also we will have the money in our fund to pay the benefits. So we will never be in the crisis that we've been in. I respect the efforts of Representative Waddell, but I would ask you to please vote no against this Amendment. Further discussion, further debate on the Amendment. If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the Amendment to House Bill 1069. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. Forty-four having voted in the affirmative, and seventy-one in the negative, the amendment fails. We are back on the Bill. Representative Terry, please stat e your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I simply wanted to change my previous vote to aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Terry, on which bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: 1080. 1080. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: 1080? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: 1080. Thank you, Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Hardister, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I voted aye on the Representative Waddell Amendment, and would like to be recorded as voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The Gentleman will be recorded correctly. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Bryan, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Just to add to the corrections, I'd like to be recorded as voting aye on House Bill 1050.. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The Gentleman will be recorded as voting aye on House Bill, which, 1080? [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Representative Luebke, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: To speak on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: The Gentleman is recognized to speak on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members of the House, this Bill, first of all, there was an attempt to improve it by my colleague Representative Waddell. He knows from his constituency, from his district, the seriousness of unemployment there. Many of you know also in your district how bad the unemployment is, and the logic of this bill is wrong in that it requires workers in the areas in which there are few jobs to use a number that is based on the statewide rate, thereby keeping their unemployment compensation low. Too low. That is a major problem in the Bill that could have been addressed, and I regret that it has not. The other point about the Bill is that it continues to hurt the unemployed of the state in the way that House bill 4 did last February. It reduces for the unemployed across the state the number of weeks for which they can collect unemployment. Regardless of their situation, regardless of their efforts to find work, from 26 weeks to 20, and as Representative Waddell just pointed out that can drop all the way to 12. This is a situation . . .

[0:00:00.0] …That leads to the working people of the State taking a serious it. So, the concern many of us had a year ago and I give you just one example this data from the US Department of Labor, last year before this bill took effect the typical worker received $301 in a week. Now, last month that has dropped to $227. Friends you are heard the working people of the State by dropping their income from $301 to $227, you are also heard the local economy because when people have $227 instead of $301 per week, they have less to expand___[00:53] to help your local economy. The bill was not a good bill from the standpoint making no improvements for the working people of the state and I urge you to vote ‘No’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warne please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like my colleagues to know that when we passed and work on this bill a year ago the average weekly benefit was $290 and when we pass the bill we actually tapped and set the new maximum weekly benefit to $350 a week which would make it the third highest weekly benefit in the South East. Prior to that the maximum weekly benefit was $535 and about 16% of the people receiving unemployment at that time formation of the bill were receiving between $350 and $535 maximum. So, when you look at the bill taking effect after July 1st and the cap been set at $350 naturally the average weekly benefit will drop. It’s not reflection of anything else than that. Also, the number of weeks of benefits will reduce to 21 weeks maximum but it didn’t when it was 26 weeks it didn’t mean any applicant got 26 weeks. The number of weeks of benefits you received was based on the individual claim as well as the amount of benefit that they were receive so it’s a natural evolution right now of the program that the weekly benefit will drop to $225 when the cap is now $350. It was a good bill then and it’s a good bill now and I support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hall please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and friends I will just ask that you look at what we have done to our workers and people we have applied for and this unemployment benefits or benefits obviously you receive after you pay at some period of employment. So, these are people we know wanted to work, had worked and have earned right to these benefits as we setup the requirements for you to earn those rights. So, we have done several things over the last few years and we have made it more difficult for people to qualify, we have reduced the amount they can receive and also changed the way we count numbers so that it appears that we have less people out of work, when in fact we know that we haven’t increase jobs sufficient to cover the number of people who go to work, who are applying for work and we still have so many people who are trying to find jobs that aren’t available right now. So, I would ask that you vote against this bill right now for that reason, if we have changed the computation that we use, we have reduced the benefits they are gonna have and it’s not is if the funding that these people receive, these unemployed receive goes somewhere offshore, these are dollars that get spent in the community, this support small business, this support families that are barely hanging on, we know we have a mortgage crises, we know we have a credit crises, we know we have an unemployment crises despite some popular ___[04:20] of the contrary. And we need to have some compassion and try to make some efforts better than this for the unemployed in our state. So, I would ask that you vote against this bill, let’s try to come back and do better, there were some suggestions made today to help not just those in the rural areas of our state but the unemployed across the state and again there are people who have proven they want to work, they have worked that’s why they would have been qualified for the unemployment. So, this myth about, these are peoples who do not want to work, I think is false and we do a disservice to our citizens to continue to treat them their way in fact… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

They only qualify for these benefits after they have been working. So, I ask that you oppose the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, Members of the House. I wasn't going to say anything, but I think some of the members are using this bill as an opportunity to rehash last year's House Bill Four. And I would just point out a few things. That bill only applied prospectively to newly unemployed, after last July 1st. It did not change the benefits for people who were unemployed prior to July 1st of last year. When the bill passed, if you'll remember, the unemployment rate was around ten percent. It is now down approaching six percent. There have been tens of thousands of new jobs. North Carolina is one of the leading states in the nation for job creation. So, the approach that the majority has taken would appear to be working. I think you've always gotta be careful talkin' about cause and effects of employment, but we hope that's gonna be the case that people will be able to find jobs. Now, the alternative to have done nothing was, if you'll remember, we had run up a debt of 2.5 billion to the federal government. I'm told that's now down around just one billion. It's got to be paid back or the FUTA rate on North Carolina's businesses would go up until that money was repaid. The federal government was gonna come in with a strong hand and take that money by taxing employment. It was gonna increase the cost to every business of hiring someone. Now if you want additional unemployment and new people to be unemployed and face those harsh realities that some of you have rightfully discussed, just tax employment higher and you will get more unemployment. So, the plan appears to be working. This is fine tuning it and I urge you to vote for the 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 1069 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote 'aye', those opposed will vote 'no'. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] Representative Graham. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 77 having voted in the affirmative and 39 in the negative. The House Bill 1069, the House Committee substitute to House Bill 1069 has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. House Bill 1031. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House Bill 1031. A bill to [??] an act to facilitate economic development within the state. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have three amendments that I would like to run through real quick, if that's all right. So, start the one, start with the first one on dash 70 at the end, if that's all right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment AMC-70 [?]V2. Representative Murray moves to amend the bill on page three, line 11, by deleting "prohibitions" and inserting "limitations" and... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This amendment, we're dealing with the public, private partnerships gonna be a non-profit corporation and the Internal Revenue Code there are limitations not prohibitions on lobbying activity. And so the correct word in the Internal Revenue Code that we need to have mirrored in the bill is "limitations". Additionally, the second part of this amendment is a incorrect statutory reference. Instead of 143 it should be 143-B. And a similar change in the third part of the amendment changing statutory reference. And then we're deleting the word "agencies" on page 16 line four, and listing the agencies out, instead of just referring to the word "agencies". We're gonna actually list them out. So, I'd move adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate.

[0:00:00.0] The question before the house is the adoption of amendment 1 to house committee substitute to House Bill 1031, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative and 2 in the negative, amendment 1 passes. Representative Murry has recognized to send forward the amendment, which amendments each everyone you prefer. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment ALB-134B1. Representative Murry amends the bill on page 7 lines 39 to 40 by inserting between the lines of following language to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, this amendment was offered by Senator Bryant and Senate appropriations this morning, this bill is tracking in both chambers. So, this would specifically allowing out the disclosure requirements for the gifts made by entities to this public private partnership, it has the gifts that they have to be disclose exceed 1000 this would $1000, this will help prohibit having to disclose ___[01:30] contributions to the public private partnership and it also set out a timeframes on a description the fare market value and certain other things should not be a monetary and not be a monetary gift to the public private partnership. As I mentioned this was unanimously adopted by Senate appropriations and the similar legislation this morning and Senator Bryant offer this amendment and the Department of Commerce has worked for Senator Bryant on this amendment, adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? If not the question before the house is the adoption of amendment 2 to the house committee substitute to House Bill 1031, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 112 having in the affirmative and 3 in the negative, the amendment passes. Representative Murry is recognized to send forward the amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is amendment ALB-135B1. Representative Murry moves amends the bill on page 5, line 9 and page 6, line 9 by deleting in each place required. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, this replaces an inappropriate word the word ‘Section’ should be replaced with ‘Sub-sections’. Well, this is taking on commitment and that would be adoption the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the adoption of amendment 3 to the house committee substitute to House Bill 1031, those in favor will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 115 having in the affirmative and 1 in the negative, the Amendment 3 is passed. Representative Murry please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, Mr. Speaker, thank you Mr. Speaker. Something just come to mind I’m gonna need to displace this bill temporarily if that’s agreeable with the Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There will be temporarily displaced. House Bill 1087, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House Bill 1087, the Bill will be titled ___[04:23] Joint Selective Study Committee on the preservation of biological evidence as recommended by the Legislative Research Commission’s Committee on judicial efficiency and effective administration of justice. Joint Assembly of North Carolina acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Well, this bill comes out of a recommendation from the Legislative Research Commission Committee on judicial efficiency and effect that took place between the long session and the short session, it also recede a unanimous vote favor will report a judiciary… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

yesterday. What the bill would do would be to establish a joint select committee on the preservation of biological evidence to review matters related to the preservation of DNA and biological evidence, including emerging technologies, procedures for inter-agency transfer of biological evidence, and costs associated with development of guidelines for retention and preservation of biological evidence. Members of committee would include appointees by the president pro tempe of the senate and the speaker of the house. Representatives of state law enforcement and judicial entities and representatives of specified law enforcement associations. The committee would be required to submit its final report on or before April 1 2015. Mr. Speaker, I ask the house to please support this, and move this study forward. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions, if there are any. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis, would you like to send your amendment forward at this time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis will be recognized to send the amendment forward. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Davis moves to amend the bill on page 1 line 14 by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, this is a technical correction. If you look at line 4, it replaces what's said originally it said the director of the SBI or the director's designee to the appropriate agency, that being the director of the North Carolina state crime laboratory or the director's designee. And I ask for support for the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the house is the adoption of Amendment 1 to House Bill 1087. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. Amendment 1 has been adopted. Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the adoption of House Bill 1087 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. House Bill 1087 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 adoption of House Bill 1087 on its third reading. Those in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. The ayes have it and House Bill 1087 has passed its third reading and will sent to the Senate. Engrossed and sent to the Senate. House Bill 1193. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute for House Bill 1193, a bill entitled an act to make technical changes to the statutes affecting the state retirement systems. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members this bill comes to us as an agency bill. This is, as the title reads, this is technical corrections act of 2014. The bill simply clarifies a number of definitions and some procedures. Also clarifies and changes some of the dates. There is also a section that has a correction for some typos so it's a number of technical corrections and different measures in the pension act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the adoption of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1193. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 115 having voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1193 has passed its second reading and without objection will be read a third time.

Senate of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, those in favor of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1193 passage on its third reading will say aye. Those opposed no. The ayes have it and the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1193 has passed its third reading, will be enrolled and sent to the senate. House Bill 1194, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1194 a bill to be entitled an act to make changes to the administration to the state retirement systems. General Assembly of the state of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill looks rather lengthy and looks like it has a lot of changes but as you know we have several retirement plans under the state and local government retirement plans, so a lot of these are repetitive, same change made for the different retirement plans. I think I can narrow this down to seven changes in the entire bill. On page 2, there is simply a definition of when a particular benefit accrues to the state retirement participant, so that's no longer vague. And that same change is repeated on page 4 for a different part of the plan. On page 5, defined a limited penalty on an employer for not remitting contributions in a timely basis. This is repeated on page 6 as well for a different retirement plan. Page 9, there's a process defined for paying a death benefit for a deceased retirement plan member and this is repeated on page 10, page 13 and page 14 if you want to read it four times. On page 15, there's a limited, the board of trustees on page 15 is required to publish an annual report on supplemental insurance offerings that are offered to retirement plan members and participation. This is an additional reporting requirement. On page 15 also, there's a clarification of what happens if a former spouse dies while receiving a member's benefit under, the lawyers can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this is a quadri qualified domestics order. On page 16 there's limited immunity for two boards. If you read that carefully though, it doesn't make them immune for any kind of malfeasance that they purposely were doing. And there's on page 16, we simply pushed back the sunset of the qualified excess benefit arrangement from 2015 to 2017. I've just enumerated to you every change in this bill, be happy to answer any questions. I'd ask that you support the administrative changes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the adoption of House Bill 1194 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 116 having voted in the affirmative and 9 in the negative, House Bill 1194 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. Representative Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Collins a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, in the section that changes or sets up the death benefit, is there anything in there that would change a retiree's designation, when they retire they select how they want to draw out their annuity. Is there anything in there that would change that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I think, is David Vanderweine here by chance? In reading through it, David you can correct me if I'm wrong, the only thing it does is basically give you a default arrangement for if you've named a beneficiary it goes there. If you haven't it goes to this person, kind of like any pension plan does. Isn't that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 1194 in its third reading. Those in favor will say aye. Those opposed will say no. The ayes have it. And House Bill 1194 has passed its third reading, will be enrolled and sent to the senate. House Bill 1201. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 1201 a bill to be entitled an act exempt admission charges to county agriculture fairs of sales tax imposed on an admission charge to an entertainment activity. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and members of the body. As you may remember a couple

Weeks ago, when we took up the omnibus tax bill. Representative Pierce stood up on the floor and brought to our attention the need to possibly exempt admission to agricultural fairs in our state. Myself and Representatives Dixon and Dobson also had that concern, along with many other members. And we do appreciate Representative Howard keeping her word and doing exactly what she said, that we would get the bill through finance and bring it back to you. It's here before you. And we believe that this would take care of our small fairs, that all the fairs in fact, but particularly for rural counties that come through once a year, letting many children and seniors in for free and give them an educational opportunity to see potentially farm animals and things that they may not come into contact with on a daily basis. But this is the bill that was promised, and I'd be glad to take any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Carney, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the house. I'm rising to support this. But without trepidation and I'm going to tell you why. I've served on revenue laws, and I've served on a subcommittee that looked at this very issue of these exemptions. They originally had five bullets, events at elementary and secondary schools in the big bill you passed, the tax law changes, agricultural fairs, youth sporting events, state attractions, limited non profit events. The subcommittee took all that under consideration and you can imagine that within our discussion and I do commend Representative Howard for leadership and allowing this discussion to go its full length within the committee and the subcommittee. On our our arts, our culture, our non-profit arts cultural and historic organizations. Under cultural, it picked up the zoo, the symphony, aquariums and a lot of other non-profit entities. Well these groups said, look, if you're, the subcommittee came out and make a couple of exemptions and we narrowed it down, I want to make sure I have this right. We narrowed it down to, we took out agricultural fairs up to two activities a year sponsored by a non-profit that did not employ people in state attractions. Those were the three that we excluded. Now what I bring you to my trepidation about is, all of those groups came together and said, okay, if you're going to exempt all of us, then do all of us. And we won't push this. So that was the fairness of doing that. However, they still wanted their exemption. They still do. And today, I'm going to support this bill because I believe that this should have the exemption. I believe that the non-profits in this state should have that exemption. I'm going to give you an example of what we're doing here, not opening this up to our non-profits, arts groups, cultural and historic organizations. If a county fair has got an aquarium for their attraction, when we pass this, they are going to be exempt from charging sales tax at the gate. But then an arts group in another part of the state may say, we're going to host a big fund raiser and we've got ?? coming to the event. So everybody's going to pay their big ticket to go to that fund raiser and they're going to pay a sales tax on it. So I think there's a problem that we really need to debate as a full body. So I'm going to, and I want you to think about that over the weekend, I'm going to support this bill today, and I'm going to object to third reading and I'm going to bring back an amendment on Monday night. That we can have that discussion around. And I would ask that you think about this over the weekend. Think about the calls you had before on the non-profits losing their exemptions and their status. There are a lot of these community groups that they really depend on their ticket sales and some of them I've heard from, and by the way I've already started hearing from them

Some of 'em don't make enough on their ticket sales to probably cover their tax that they've gotta pay their sales tax. So, then they're gonna have to dip into their contributions to pay that. It's a bigger, bigger issue than just sayin', "You all go take care of your tickets. You pay your sales tax." But we're starting here today by sayin' the county fairs, we should exempt them. And I agree, so I'm going to support it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Last year, members, we had a tax reform bill, lower rates [?] etcetera. This is 400 thousand, next week we get to decide how to spend 21 billion, plus or minus 400 thousand. I'll vote for it if anybody can actually give me a policy reason why this should be excluded, in comparison to the others that are not excluded. I can't think of one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a question of the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, do you know what the difference is in revenue if we exempt this and what it would be if we exempted all the non-profits that Representative Carney is talking about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can't answer your question completely. I can tell you for this bill specifically, that it impacts the budget this year with a figure of zero. And that next year they predict, even though it's very difficult to predict, because the fairs allow so many people to come in for free, young kids and seniors, it's about 400 thousand dollars for this bill. What would the difference be for exempting all non-profits? I could not answer that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, I believe that Representative Howard, Chair Howard has indicated she has the specific answer to that question. If the gentleman would like to redirect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will redirect to Chairman Howard. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. Actually, I don't have the exact number, but I can tell you that it's a large number. And as Representative Stam just spoke so elegantly about the House Bill 998. This is the beginning of unraveling that major piece of legislation. And I don't believe that's what we want to do. Representative Holloway, with great respect and Representative Pierce agreed to run the bill, because it would have held up 1050 for three days, three more days, if we had, had the amendment on the floor last week. And out of respect, I certainly do need to get that bill movin'. But, this is the beginning of unraveling all of the hard work that you did last year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. Representative Lewis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker and thank you, ladies and gentlemen of the House. I want to commend the gentlemen from Stokes. We're all sent up here to represent the folks back home. I think the intention behind this bill is to do that. I certainly commend the hard work that he's done. I commend the honorable way in which he's brought this matter before us. I also want to echo much of what the lady from Mecklenburg said. This is indeed an issue of treating the same things the same way across the board. And I'll echo what the distinguished lady from Davie just said. This is the first step in starting to treat the same things differently. You've already heard a pledge from the distinguished member from Mecklenburg that there will be an amendment to this bill, next week to broaden the exemptions further. Folks, we did make a commitment that we were going to treat the same things the same way. This bill goes in the opposite direction. This bill is well intentioned. Utmost respect for all of the bill sponsors. Utmost respect for all of you who support the bill today. Unfortunately, I cannot do that and I'll be voting 'no'. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and... [END OF RECORDING]

I am very sympathetic to what Representative Holloway wants to do because I've got a fair that's on this list, if you've got one of the agricultural fairs, and of course they want to be exempt from the sales tax but so do the symphony, and the zoo, and all the other state attractions that we have imposed a sales tax on. So we made a policy decision last year, well we will treat everybody equally and fairly and no one's treated any better or any worse than anybody else. And so that was the policy decision we made when we passed tax reform and it was the only fair way to do it. Now we're coming back and we're beginning to tilt it and so it becomes a matter of, well who has the clout to get a special exemption for their special interest? You can't vote for this bill and then vote against the amendment that Representative Carney wants to offer on Monday to allow the other non-profits. Now, the members of my side of the aisle wanted to do tax reform, the goal was we're gonna lower the personal income tax, we're gonna lower the corporate income tax. I know that we had the opposition from members on the other side of the aisle. They didn't agree with that but that was the policy that we set. Well, when you started lowering the rates how were you going to pay for it? Well we had to do it by eliminating some of the special exemptions in the tax code. Now, next week we're going to be debating a budget in this House and we need more money, not less money. They say it's only $400,000. Yes, that's right, in a 21 billion dollar budget that's not a lot of money but do you want it to cut the teaching assistants? Do you want the school health nurses? Do you, where do we want to make the cuts? I mean, $400,000 is $400,000 and so, Mr. Speaker, I'd like to make a motion that we re-refer this bill back to the Finance Committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has made the- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Back up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] -the motion, duly seconded, Representative Holloway. The motion before is to re-refer to Finance. The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion if that is the gentleman's purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, that is it. Thank you. Mr. Speaker, as a young child I remember getting up on Saturday morning and watching professional wrestling and one of my favorite wrestlers was the Nature Boy Rick Flair and he had a little crew, it was called The Four Horsemen and I think The Four Horsemen have come after me today on the floor of the House. What I'll point out to you, I have got a lot of respect for the non-profits and I understand what's been said here today. It won't be whittled or broken down if we don't allow it and the thing I will tell you that's different about these little agricultural fairs, again, it's one time a year. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The merits of the bill are really not in order at this point. This is a vote on the motion to re-refer to the committee. The gentleman will please stay focused in his comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm trying to and I'm trying to tell them why it's a bad idea to send it this committee. I don't think, or refer it back. Folks, we didn't seem to have a big problem with this last week. I don't see what the big deal is. We've got a tremendous challenge when we go to the Senate to even deal with this. I just ask that we just keep it here today. If you want to vote the bill down, vote it down. I'm not afraid to lose the bill here on the floor of the House but I really believe in this and believe this is the right thing to do. Let's just keep it here on the floor. Don't send it to Finance. If you want to vote no, vote no. You won't hurt my feelings at all but I'm going to vote yes and I hope we'll do the right thing because these fairs need to stick around and they're a big, big thing for our small communities, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To be clear, the gentleman will be voting yes on the bill, not the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You're right. I'm not voting for the motion. I want to- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I agree with Representative Holloway. Obviously I'm not going to vote for the bill but we spent time on it, we might as well deal with it here and go ahead and take care of it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stone, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I agree, as well, with Representative Holloway. I think this, a lot of people

Back home. We'd like to know where you stand on this issue and versus Senate back to committee just to kill it. This is a great chance to stand up and let you people back home know where you stand. So I'd ask that you vote yes for the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Vote no for the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the gentleman's motion be ?? upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll just withdraw my motion. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well that. Ladies and gentlemen to do this in the proper order we will ask Representative Moore to be recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will withdraw my motion based upon the Finance Chair's representation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I withdraw my motion. [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now we're back on the bill. Representative Jordan please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquire bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield all the questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate very much my good colleague from ?? I had a question for you. In the definition it includes commercial agriculture fare and my question is are there any for profit companies who run fairs who would be exempt from sales tax. Whether contractors or any other for profit company involved. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know that I could answer that. I would have to refer that to one of the Finance Chair's. I'm an approach guy. I don't know the technical answer to that and all I'm looking to do is to keep the folks that are the non profits from having to submit to sales tax from the admissions. So that's all I'm looking to do. I don't know if I have your answer and I'd have to defer to one of the finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Wait Mr. Speaker, I believe I have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair apologizes. The gentleman didn't realize. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. May I redirect the question or may I follow up with an additional inquiry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I redirect? Is there a Finance Chair that would like to answer that question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Howard, does the lady yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There's several different makeups Representative Jordan. Some of the non profits, such as the Lyon's Club, they own a piece of property and they lease out that piece of property to another entity. So that is a for profit entity that is leasing the property and sometimes they bring in the rides and sometimes they have the fifth concessions. There's a whole makeup of different groups that run these county fairs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much Representative Howard. As a follow up if in that case if a non profit leases the property to a for profit organization, the for profit organization would be charging the sales tax on the admissions as opposed to the concessions at the non profit. Is that correct? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's the way it should be but there are lease agreements. It's a whole bag of different leases and agreements. That's why we struggled with this Representative Jordan, because there was nothing that was uniform and consistent. So therefore the subcommittee made the recommendation that everybody would just be treated the same all across the state. Therefore the county fairs like the arts, and the Symphony and everybody would do the admission tax the same. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative. May I have a follow up to the bill sponsor? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield all questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Holloway. Is the state fair one of these listed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All fairs. Every one of them. State. Every one of them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there for profit contractors who run the state fair? Who would be charging the admission and the tax would come out of their for profit money? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again I don't know that I can answer that. If you'll let me just look and. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My inquiry is because we have a commissioner of Agriculture who went to prison because she was taking money from fair operators so there must be money involved. So I want to know are these for profit operators? [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I am interested in again, is a small act fairs. The easiest way to do this was to include them all. Again I don't know that I can answer your question. You may want to defer again to one of the Finance Chairs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. May I speak on the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I think everyone can see from my inquiries what my concern is.

I'm very much in favor of our small - thank you, Mr. Speaker - very much in favor of our small non-profits not having to deal with this issue, and Ag is an extremely important issue to me. I don't have a fair in my district, but we have several that we go to that are in and around us. My concern is that there are for-profit operators who run some of these, apparently fairs, and I don't know that we should be exempting any for-profit company from paying a sales tax on an admission. As we've heard, there may be non-profits who, maybe, lease the property, or something, they would not be charging sales tax on their concessions. That would be something we might discuss - I don't think we should do that. But, the admissions price would be paid for . . . the sales tax would come out of the for-profit company, and I don't think we should exempt for-profit companies. And, that's where I stand, and I think I would have to vote against this Bill because it includes that type of situation. Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dixon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The debated Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentlemen recognize the debated Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the Floor, Members of the House, I realize the sensitivity of this issue, and I certainly realize Representative Howard talking about the beginning of the dismantling of that. But, let me put this perspective on it, and let me go back a few years, because most of these fairs that we are talking about have their historical origin in relationship to agriculture, and when there is a relationship to agriculture, obviously the circumstances of farming or farmers are brought into play. I know that everybody in here today is going to vote their conscience on exactly how they feel about it. But, let me give you a perspective from a right good while ago that may provide you with additional data as you make up your mind how you're going to vote on this Bill. On September 30, 1859, a few months before he was to become President of the United States of America, Abraham Lincoln was invited to open up the Wisconsin State Agricultural Society Fair. Some of his remarks then may provide interesting perspective for us as we consider this debate today. He began that - and this is going to be brief - by saying this, "I presume I am not expected t o employ the time assigned to me in the mere flattery of farmers as a class. My opinion of them is that in proportion to numbers, they are neither better nor worse than other people. In the nature of things, they are more numerous than any other class, and I believe there really are more attempts politically flattering them than any other. The reason of which I cannot perceive, unless it be that they can cast the most votes." Those circumstances no longer exist. He went on to say, "But farmers being the most numerous class, it follows that their interest is the largest interest. It also follows that that interest is most worthy of all to be cherished and cultivated." And then, here is my point: "that if there be inevitable conflict between that interest," - meaning the interest of the farmers or agriculture - "and any other, that other should yield." So Representative Lewis, or whoever said it, I will have no problem in voting for this Bill today and against Representative Collins' amendment on Monday. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? the Chair? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the Chair anticipates your question, and if the Gentlemen will allow the Gentleman from Stokes to be recognized . . .

Think you question will be answered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holloway, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To quickly speak on the bill and to make a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just want to stand up and speak. I think we've had a very, very good debate. I think everybody know's what they're going to do on this bill. ?? address a concern that Representative Jordan had made. My friends from the gallery have sent me some text messages to answer it. The thing that fits with ?? was the rides which is contract, which this bill and the new tax law in no way impacts. As far as the admission, so that is not for profit at all. Those are the folks that the non profits who run that that's taking them out of having to send the state's sales tax. So there's no for profit folks that are going to be impacted at all. But with that being said, vote your conscious. Do what you think. I like rule fairs. I want to keep them going. I don't want to have to tell all the school kids and stuff that get so excited about getting the free fare tickets that it won't be there for you. So I hope we'll move this on to the Senate. With that I'd like to make a motion Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to call the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion having been made and duly seconded by Representative Tim Moore. The motion is not debatable. The question before the House is the motion to call the previous question. All those in favor vote aye. All those opposed vote no. The cleric will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Cleric roll out the machine. Record the vote. 93 having voted in the affirmative and 20 in the negative. The motion passes. Representative Holloway that may be a record for that motion. The question before the House is the, by rule ladies and gentlemen there is an option both for the minority and the majority to spend three minutes. The leaders to debate before the vote. Does the majority wish to debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the majority wish to debate? The question before the House is the passage of Bill 1201 on it's second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The cleric will open the vote. The cleric roll out the machine. Record the vote. 60 having voted the affirmative and 54 in the negative. The House Bill 1201 has passed it's second reading and without objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised. The bill remains on the calendar. Ladies and gentlemen without objection that will be on Tuesday's calendar. Not Monday's calendar. There will be a no vote session on Monday. House Bill 1076 the cleric will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee substitute for House Bill 1076 to build an entitlement act to reduce the number of recipients of hard copies of the appellate division reports distributed at state expense. As recommended by the Legislative Research Commission Committees on judicial efficiency and administration of justice. ?? North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'll be brief. You've heard the title of the bill which pretty much explains this as a recommendation of the committee but this is an effort to continue to cut down on calls by cutting down on hard copies that will be printed ?? these decisions still sending them to, for example, the Chief Justice, the Justices of Spring Court's Court of Appeals, and to each counties Clerk of Court. But we'll just make sure that there's an electronic version available, otherwise, that folks can still purchase if it need be so we would encourage your support of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1076 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 fifteen having voted in the affirmative. None in the negative. The House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1076 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 Subcommittee to House Bill 1076 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. House Subcommittee to House Bill 1076 has passed it's third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Ladies and gentlemen, on behalf of all the members the Chair is delighted to welcome a group of teachers, chaperones and especially students from Pinewood Elementary from my home county of Mecklenburg. Welcome. [applause] Ladies and gentlemen, we are now returning to House Bill 1031. The Chair understands that there are five amendments to be considered. Yes, Representative Floyd, we do intend to hear all the amendments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, you indicated that we have five amendments. Since you so graciously given us the number, can you also give us a limit on the debate itself? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We will do our best to manage that process, Representative Floyd. Representative Alexander is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Alexander moves to amend the bill on page 7, lines 8 through 16, by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This is a relatively simple amendment that would simply restrict the hardworking taxpayer's money from being used in severance payments. It's my belief and I think that many of you will probably share this belief, that if the leadership of these entities wish to pay severance, then that severance money should come from non-public funds. I would urge your support of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to thank Representative Alexander for this amendment and I'd ask members to support this amendment and vote yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I want to put forth an amendment after you finish this one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Alexander to the House Committee Substitute of House Bill 1031. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. One hundred and eleven having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Holley, we will get to your amendment in turn. The next amendment will be from Representative Hamilton who is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton moves to amend the bill on page 3, lines 47 through 48, by deleting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. My amendment, too, is very simple. It just increases the amount of the private investment in order for the contracts to begin with the public-private partnership. I'll be happy to answer any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion having been made, duly seconded by Representative Burr, is to lie upon the table. The amendment sent forth by Representative Hamilton. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote.

[0:00:00.0] The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 62 having vote affirmative, 42 negative the motion passes. Representative Farmer Butterfield is recognized to forward the amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Farmer Butterfield moves the amendment bill on page 8, line 46 to page 9, and line 26 by deleting the line. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McNeil please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I like to be recorded this voting ‘Yes’ on that last amendment on the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion is on the table Representative McNeil will be recorded just having voted aye, Representative Ramzi please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I like to be recorded this voted ‘Yes’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On the motion, the gentleman record his voting aye, Representative Bryan please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I like to be recorded this voted ‘No’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman recorded his voting ‘No’ on the motion to table. Representative Farmer Butterfield has recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hi today Mr. Speaker I like to vote ‘No’. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Presumably on the motion to table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, motion to table, correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ladies recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My amendment simply is more openness and transparency to the process. It assures that the new partnership operates under the same public laws that Congress now uses. So, it is not broke or [??] fix it. In North Carolina we should assure that there is always openness and transparency, we want to protect the program from abuse. If public funds have been used then we need to continue to be open and transparent, I ask you to vote ‘Yes’ for the amendment thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, when we debated Senate Bill 127 on this house floor in the long session, we addressed public records in that legislation, I’m gonna address the changes that have been made as a result and why they were made? The non-profit corporations ___[02:15] economic development for the state of North Carolina under the bill before you which Representative Farmer Butterfield seeks to amend this entire section out of the bill would require that once public funds are obligated any conversation that is being head by this private non-profit corporation, once public funds are obligated then the public records would be subject to the Public Records Act. Projects submitted to the Department of Commerce or consideration of discretionary incentives in which funds are either not awarded or not accepted only the briefing memo that this non-profit corporation prepares to the Department of Commerce would be subject to public records and disclosure. So, one of the number one complaints that you hear from your Economic Developers back home is that, “I can’t have free flowing conversations with these private sector entities but with fear of public disclosure and it alters the competitive balance between our state and other states.” This is the one of the number one complaints that you hear from the economic developer folks and if once public funds are obligated all the materials will become public that’s the really line of demarcation that we are talking about here. If public funds are never obligated then it’s a private conversation. So, that’s why I ask you to vote against this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thanks very much Mr. Speaker. My friend from Wake County, Representative Murry has I think correctly identified one of the tensions that’s inherent to the economic development process, when something should be provided private in order to facilitate the kind of discussions that must take place in order to do this kind of work but when the public interest to know finally outlays that and that information becomes public that’s something under our current system of economic development North Carolina has dealt with this over the decades. I think most folks will not say that the balance that we have right now is perfect but it’s something that has work certainly the public and the press is abdicating for greater transparency in those who is my friend from Wake County said, “We have to actually do the work behind the scenes initially to get the real done might abdicate for more.” That’s happen before that’s always gonna have as long as we are doing this work, right. Now, there is a good debate to be had on whether we should or should not move towards a more private model for economic development and will have that debate on this bill but what I would like to think is not out for debate that if we are gonna move to a greater law for the private sector and economic development… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

...Should not be used to shield those activities from public knowledge. If you agree with me on that principle, I hope you'll join me in supporting this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I've been reading ferociously here, but as a non-lawyer it's slow for me. The clarification, once it becomes sponsored through funding by the state, it's all records, pre-agreement as well as following. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is exactly right, yes ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Farmer-Butterfield, to the House Committee substitute for House Bill 1031. All in favor vote 'aye', all opposed vote 'no'. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 39 having voted in the affirmative, 75 in the negative. The amendment fails. Representative Holley is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley moves to amend the bill on page three, lines 40 through 45 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I'd like to say that I have nothing really at all against public-private partnerships. And I think it's a good thing that the state is looking at this. There are a lot of things that we can't do in the state government. But then we are not and cannot go straight to the private-partnership piece of this and do everything as private entity either because we are stewards of the state's money. And what I'm trying to say on this bill is that this bill allows for any officer, employee, or board member to earn $120,000 of tax payers' money in an annual salary. Which will and can be supplemented with non-profit money from the private funds. My amendment reduces the amount of the tax payers' funds to $85,000 for the officer and $60,000 for the employees. At a time where we are talking about teachers' salaries, it just doesn't look for the state to do this. Also, probably the most shocking portion of this bill, is that it allocates $120,000 annually salaries for 17 board members and these board members are made up of politically appointees. Now, this can lead to, if 17 people receive this salary, this is two million dollars. I'd rather see this two million dollars actually spent in bringing businesses to North Carolina than to pay political appointtees to sit on a board. Now, most non-profits I know, the board members are not paid. And they do it because it's in the best interests of the for non-profit. And I hope that anyone that sits on this board will feel the same. So, I object to this portion of the bill, and that's why I'm trying to say that no state funds can be allotted for any board member on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Representative Murry, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I would ask that you would oppose this amendment. There is a limitation in the bill on the amount of public funds that can be used on salaries. And this would further limit the amount of salaries, lower the public funds. And this, at the end of the day, when you're talking about a public-private partnership, you gotta have a balance between public dollars and private dollars. And this would hamper the ability of the public-private partnership to hire qualified individuals. And it would further restrict the amount of private sector dollars that are raised to be used on economic development activities. We would have more of the private sector dollars consumed with salaries, versus going to the direct marketing of this state to recruit businesses to do business and expand in this state. So, I would ask that you oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Meyer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Murry a question, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [END OF RECORDING]

... suggested that we need to strike a balance, so are you suggesting that the balance means that thee employees should be compensated at a rate up to 240 thousand dollars, since that would be a balance between public and private? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s not what the bill says. That misconstrues the entire legislation. What I’m saying is that we should pay fair market value for employees, and the public sector should be limited on the amount of investment in this partnership, and so I expect what you’ll see is you’ll have fewer employees doing more work at a higher compensation rate and be having more production as a result of this public-private partnership, and that’s why we’re limiting the amount of public funds being expended on salaries. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] does the gentleman yield to a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Am I correct though in understanding that the language of the bill, that the cap on public funds, there’s not also… am I correct that there’s not also a cap on total salary? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The cap is 120 thousand dollars, and where there’s not a cap but where the real compensation conversation comes in is the overall employment performance bonus pool, and so a significant amount of performance compensation is going to come likely from performance bonuses. That’s how the private sector operates. The way. We don’t have bonuses for well-performing secretaries in our public sector, and so this is standard operating procedure in the private sector to have performance-based compensation. That’s where the over 120 thousand dollars would come in for a compensation perspective, and that would be private sector dollars for bonuses. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the amendment do lie upon the table. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion having been made, seconded by Representative Burr, is to lie upon the table the motion sent forth by Representative Holley to the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1031. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will let the machine record the vote. 57 having voted in the affirmative and 56 in the negative, the motion passes. Representative Shepard, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, Mr. Speaker. I have a question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At this point, the bill is no longer before us. It has been lied upon the table. I’m sorry, the amendment. You’re back to the bill. I’m sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Back to the bill, yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the gentleman would yield, it is the intent of the Chair, Representative Sheppard, to entertain one more amendment before we get to the discussion and debate on the bill. Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier moves to amend the bill on page 4, line 47 by rewriting the line to read… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, my amendment simply actually takes the language of the bill to exactly what the recommendation was coming out of the committee. The Economic Development and Global Engagement Committee used this language, and actually as the bill was filed had this language, and what it specifically does it make sure that any board member, any employee, any member of this new nonprofit corporation has to comply with the State Ethics Act, and I say that for a number of reasons. Although there’s a conflicts provision in the bill, and although we have other provisions in the bill, it is a lesser standard of state ethics. This simply puts in the same robust standard of ethics that we apply to everybody else, and particularly makes sure that we live up to our transparency and reporting requirements. I think that becomes all the more true when we’re using specific taxpayer money on the corporation, and as well, they’re doing public business. So regardless of whether you agree or disagree with the philosophy of the bill, that’s really not at issue here. What is at issue is that we live up to our ethics requirements and that we make everybody else live up to. And as I suggested, it’s exactly the language that came out of the committee, and exactly the language in the bill that was as it was originally filed, and I move adoption. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Gill, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I was in the House and did not… and would like to be recorded as voting “no” on the last motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady will be recorded as voting no, as will the Speaker.

?? The vote stands. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Last year on the house floor when we debated the public private partnership, the Senate Bill 127 had the same language we're talking about today from a conflict of interest perspective. I will remind everyone that bill passed in a bipartisan basis 77-38 on the second reading and 86-27 on the third reading. We've expanded the ethics policy and the conflict of interest policy in this language not just to include the board but we're also including an ethics policy, a conflict of interest policy, gift ban to cover board members, officers and employees. Everybody knows what the golden leaf foundation is. The golden leaf is not subject to state ethics act. And so I would make an analogy to the golden leaf foundation from an economic development perspective to what we're trying to set up here. And so that's a private sector acting type entity and that's what we're trying to operate here. Conflict of interest policies, ethics policies and gift bans operate in the private sector and that's what we're trying to emulate here and I'd ask members to oppose the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Langdon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On the motion I hit the wrong button and I'd like to change my vote to yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye on the motion to table. Representative Bumgardner please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I did the same thing. I was in the back of the room discussing another matter and I voted the wrong way on that motion. I hit the red button and I wanted to hit green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as voting aye on the motion to table. Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion a second time please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry Mr. Speaker, thank you. Members, I would listen to Representative Murray and I appreciate his point but it says nothing to the merit of this. The conflicts provisions are one thing. The ethics rules of the state have more than conflicts provisions in them and contain specific and important transparency and reporting requirements. Representative Murray suggests that we ought to emulate Golden Leaf. I would suggest given some of the issues that have occurred recently, that's probably not the best example I'd have put on the House floor about ethics provisions and how we look at transparency and reporting requirements. And so all this does is go back to exactly the recommendation that the committee had that came out with as this bill was filed. So clearly the committee in a bipartisan way thought this was an appropriate ethics standard. It is a more robust ethics standard than what is in this bill, and if everybody is aware again, regardless of how you are on the model, the problems the model has had in other states where there have been problems have precisely been because the ethics rules weren't robust enough and everybody gets caught later with it. So this is really a preventive measure and while it may not be fun to follow the ethics rules, we certainly ought to make sure that this body does that from the beginning. Again I urge adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Folks as I said in an earlier debate on another amendment, there may be a right way to do public private and there may be a wrong way. If we do it the right way, ideally down the road a decade or so from now we might be able to look back and say we did something right, we put in appropriate safeguards and this was a good thing for the people of North Carolina. I'm starting to fear though that instead sometime in the next decade, we've got a front page above the fold newspaper investigative reporter headline on what went wrong with the changes that North Carolina made to its economic development. If you don't vote for this amendment, I think you are increasing the likelihood of that bad headline happening. Think about some of the scandals that have hit North Carolina in the past. If you choose to not have our ethics rules apply, you're making it much more likely that you're a cause of one of those headlines. I urge you to support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this amendment and I'll tell you why. Over the next five years, this public private partnership or so it's called, is only required to raise close to six million dollars in order

The contract remain in place. That means if my numbers are correct, it's only about 6% of the total amount of money that the organization could receive over the next five years. That means 94% of the funding associated with this quote public private partnership will be from taxpayer dollars. For that reason, I think that they should be subject to the same ethics requirements that the rest of us in this room are. I urge your adoption of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This would create a standard for an employee higher than any other state employee in the state of North Carolina. There are employees that deal with public private partnerships and give out millions of dollars of contracts, of DOT contracts that are not subject to the state ethics act. I would ask that you oppose this amendment because we're going to run off private sector people from helping us move North Carolina forward from an economic development perspective, if we have a barrier so high that they just say it's not worth the juice isn't worth the squeeze, I'm not going to get involved in this public private partnership to help move North Carolina forward. We need this public private partnership to move at the speed of business, not at the speed of government. I would ask that you oppose this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Glazier would be available for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, I'm not an expert on the general statutes so I just needed to get a little bit of clarification. It looks to me that we're saying two different things here. That we're saying all employees of this operation would be subject to I guess GS138 A3 and then all of them above a certain pay level would be subject to 138 A22 or something. Could you explain the difference? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, and a good question, Representative Collins. So the first part simply says that all the employees and directors are subject to the state ethics act. The second part exempts any employee making less than $60,000 the requirement that they have to file the state ethics form, so that we are consistent. The requirement ought not be that maintenance folks and clerical workers have to file the reporting form. And so it exempts them and is really getting at the higher paid folks which is pretty standard. And that was deliberately put in there in order to make sure that everybody doesn't have to fill out the form to be a clerical worker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just have one follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not, again, I know what we have to do and I'm not much of an expert on the rest of the state. Is this something that all state employees do, DOT and DOC workers and all that kind of? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are certainly some exemptions but on the whole, state employees are required to comply just as any other public servant. Public servants are required to comply with state ethics act requirements. And that's all this does. We exempt all lesser employees in terms of salary from having to file the reporting requirements which is obviously something we still have to do. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Shepherd, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Mr. Speaker, before on the motion to table, I voted no and I should have voted yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will have been recorded as voting aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the amendment, sent forth by Representative Glazier for the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1031. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 63 having voted affirmative, 52 in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Murray, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We had a robust debate on this bill when it was originally filed as senate bill 127. I want to go through some of the changes that this bill has with regards to certain items. Senate bill 127 did not have any minimum fund raising requirements for this public private partnership and so this bill, this legislation would require before a contract is entered into with the state, with this public private partnership to raise at least a quarter million dollars of seed funding and there's additionally this public private partnership would be required

. . . have to raise at least 1.25 million dollars a year over five years, so it's a 6 million dollar requirement as part of the contract obligations in order to meet performance. That's a new change from Senate Bill 127 from last year. Additionally, there are baseline performance measures that are outlined in this legislation, and that's a new requirement, as well. It's more expanded so we're going to be able to analyze how this public-private partnership is operating with State funds, with private sector funds, and how . . . and whether it works, whether it's something that's benefiting the State of North Carolina. I would additionally point out that there is a Public Accountability and Standards Committee for this ?? development partnership that's comprised of four secretaries and three appointees from the Legislature to help make sure that the contract that is entered into between the State and this private entity, that the contract is being met. I think we've got great additions that are made by folks in the forward good debate, I think we made this bill better on the House Floor today. It's a clean bill, and I would ask your support, and ask you to go back home and talk to your ?? developers on how this is going to improve their operations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Meyer, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the sponsor a question, and then to speak on the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, does the Gentleman yield? SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, we currently have an Economic Development Board that advises the Governor, are the members of that boards paid a salary? [SPEAKER CHANGES] They're not paid a salary. The intention of this board, and I think we're working on an amendment to clarify. The intention of this legislation is not to have the board receive compensation. It's a non-compensatable board. I understand why . . . I could see how you could read the legislation and see that but that's not how boards operate. Any of the boards on the economic . . . I am on the Governor's Economic Development Board, and so I can assure you that it's not a compensatable activity that I've been involved with, helping the Governor, helping develop the Governor's economic development policy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the Gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does this legislation allow for compensation to be paid for the board members of this new public-private partnership? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's not how I read the legislation. We are, I think, we are working on an amendment to clarify that, but I don't read this legislation as having a board that receives compensation. The intention of this legislation is to make sure the employees are compensated, to limit the amount of public funds that go to that compensation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm concerned that this public-private partnership is far too private and not public enough. This takes public functions that are currently served by members of the Department of Commerce and turns them over to the private sector. Commerce already utilizes many public-private partnerships, and to great good for the State of North Carolina. The Department of Commerce represents the entire State and works on building economic development in every area of the State, including the low-wealth areas of the State. Opening up this public-private partnership gives us, as a Legislature, much less ability to impact economic development across the entire State, and comes too close to letting the fox into the hen house. What concerns me most about this Bill is that we're turning over 20 million dollars of public money to a partnership that has very little public involvement after we turn it over, and that, in fact, with unclear language in the bill about a board, we may be paying board members a hundred and twenty thousand dollars a year for a role that we have public servants that do for free. I stand against the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hurley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Lady has the Floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I hear what Representative Murry is saying, but he has not put an amendment on the table to clarify that, and this bill clearly states that this can go to board members. This kind of money can go to board members. This is just what we were able to look at quickly, because this came to a small committee meeting and was quickly read in to us. I know they've been working on it a long time, but it needs to go to a big committee. It needs to be aired out a little bit more because little things like this are just horrible for this bill. Another thing that's in this bill that I did not discuss was bonuses. There's nothing in here . . . it says that bonuses can't be made, but there're no restrictions or guidelines as to how much someone can get a bonus, and a bonus for what? You know if you get a job, you're going to get a bonus . . . I know every State employee. I used to do procurement, and if I couldn't make . . .

If I get a dime for every dollar that I saved this state of North Carolina as a bonus, I would be really happy. The way this day is right now I would like to trade my seat for one of the jobs to sit on this board. That one hundred twenty thousand dollars of state money. That’s just the minimum because there’s no say in how much profit money they can get. So for this, I cannot support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Murry would yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. Thank you Representative Murry. Last session we had a similar bill that did similar things that got caught up with surprisingly some Senate activities on the other side so I supported that bill when we had it here and one of the reasons was the money that was going to be collected was going to be pulled state wide and redistributed to divisions in areas that would perhaps might not have the resources available to them like the mountains like the east because we don’t have big businesses in those areas and thus we need the economic development. I read through it and I didn’t see that type of revision in here but having read it quickly I’m looking to see if perhaps that provision is still in the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That has not changed from the previous if you look on Section 3.2 or Part 3 of the creation of collaboration for prosperity zones that’s really the section that makes sure that various departments across our state governments collaborate and work together on a regional basis. To make sure that we decentralize commerce. Get it down to the regional level. Get it partnered with transportation and education and make sure everyone is singing out of the same song book so you don’t have to worry about permitting. If you have an economic development conversation on a regional basis and have all the interested parties from a departmental perspective around the table, it will help decentralize activity. Get it out of Raleigh. Get it out of commerce and get it into your rural areas. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman in the yellow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I saw that in there. I see the process and the structure that you’re setting up but what I don’t see is any sort of specific language or provision that would say that some sort of equal distribution or at least some sort of percentage might go to rural or particularly hit areas or any sort of guiding language in regards to it because although we can as I’ve seen already in my short time here we can have the intent of those types of things but s soon as it goes over to a type of department they may interpret things differently or decide to do things differently. So is there something specific that deals with that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would say that the prosperity zone model is the decentralized process that you’re describing and getting private sector investment into this partnership and distributing that investment across these prosperity zones enables areas that don’t have robust private sector or large business partnership opportunities to receive benefit that investment being made in this entity and then distributed through the prosperity zone process. So that’s how we’re getting to the end that you’re asking about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative. I’d like to be recognized to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A gentleman’s right. You may debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. I get the concept. I’m still a little concerned. The reason that I am is because we compete against ourselves inside of the state. It’s just the reality of economic development that an area in eastern North Carolina is going to be looking at the same business that somebody in western North Carolina is going to be looking at and if we don’t figure out a way to make sure that we’re spreading the love through the state to make sure there are assets in each area, it’s be very easy for a department that you have a person in each area but I’m concerned the assets might stay in particular areas of the state. It might something that the representatives might be willing to work on to talk about but I just want to make sure that’s something we address as we move down the road. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Michaux please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry to check. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker do we have a fiscal note on this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] There

[0:00:00.0] There is no fiscal note on this bill. I would like to ask those sponsors question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I like to ask bill sponsor question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, aye? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How much is this gonna cost Representative Murry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is unclear to see what this legislation will cost but I can tell you it’s gonna be consumed within the commerce budget, there is no additional funds needed to appropriate because this transition will be completely absorbed within the existing budget of the Department of Commerce so I don’t know why fiscal note would be necessary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman aye? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What existing budget in the Department of Commerce we are talking about? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The NER Sub-Committee of which I’m a Co-Chair along with my colleague from Chair, Representative West we have in developing working with the Department of Commerce to help develop their budget and there are willing and able to consume all activities associated with this transition within their existing budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Another question Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman aye… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Have those ___[01:06] been appropriated yet? [SPEAKER CHANGES] We have not a budget vote to this point but there is no fiscal impact because like I say I will said it third time, any transition from the current Department of Commerce to this public private partnership we completely consumed within the existing budget with the Department of Commerce. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mitchell to the chair and to its space the direction of your question it’s my understanding and Representative Murry may be able to confirm this that in commerce the provisions of the bill that would have done an appropriation were removed because prior to that this bill had been referred to appropriations. Is that correct Representative Murry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. Contrast that to the Senate but Senate version which had an appropriation and so the Senate version of this bill actually went to Senate appropriations. The house versions don’t have appropriation language and didn’t need to go to house appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I just like the next statement on the process here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal…Well, the gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, here the problem with folks, we are talking about rather large sum of money, on one side which is been in the Senate and this side the Senate has evidently put in an appropriation which I understand is about 17 and me involves for the some reasons rather we have done nothing in terms other than make noises about the department of ___[02:43], this sounds to be sums in their budget, as far as I’m concerned, as far as we are concerned we don’t have a budget for any of our yet. And I don’t see right now this bill should not be referred to committee on appropriations till such time and as funds can be identified as to work this program is gonna call us, ___[03:03] this program is gonna call us, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stan please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, would Representative Mitchell aye? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mitchell, aye? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Sir, I aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Mitchell we are at a two year ___[03:23] budget. The budget for two years was in-acted a year ago, wouldn’t that include the funds that are in question here we do actually have the appropriations on going… [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t believe that’s right Representative Stan because we have a done a two year budget we are in the second year of the budget now the adjustments would be made to that two year budget, we haven’t made those adjustments to that two year budget and we need to know I think in my mind what is this gonna cost us and what adjustments we have to make to that two year budget in order to get it done? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry please state your purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to send forward the amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry moves to amend the bill on page 3 lines 40 through 45, re-writing those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, we had a fair amount of debate about one of ___[04:28] to receive compensation this amendment handles that issue and making it very abundantly clear through this amendment that the board is not going to receive compensation on this legislation. The compensation of $120,000 applies only to officers and employees of the corporation like Chief Executive Officer or any other additional employee. We are glad to answer any questions about this amendment and move it out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative… [0:04:59.9] [End of file…]

Holley. The lady may not have heard the gentleman's debate on the motion. I don't know if the Chair would, if the House will come to order, if the gentleman will please restate the intent of this motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The intent of this amendment is to make it abundantly clear that the board of directors for this non-profit corporation is not to receive any compensation. The compensation caps are limited solely to the annual salary for officers and employees of the non-profit corporation. That does not apply to the board of directors. We've taken all board of directors language out of that section in the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I have a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes ma'am your question, I am amending the bill to make it abundantly clear that board of directors members do not receive any compensation of this non-profit corporation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does that also include money for bonuses? Will that come out of state funds as well? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The only compensation that board of directors members will be eligible for would be the state per diem for the days that they serve and that's it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, the lady brought a point, a valid point that the members recognize it needed to be clarified. It was not the original intent to pay the board members a compensation. Further discussion, further debate on the amendment. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the amendment sent forth by Representative Murray to the House Committee Substitute of House Bill 1031. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted in affirmative, none in the negative. The amendment passes. Representative Dixon, 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. When this first began to be talked about, I had concern and I got involved in talking with various people, having conversations about how going forward this would affect the rural parts of North Carolina. Then began to invite various people who will have significant input into how this takes place. Secretary of Commerce and other people. We've had several round table discussions in Eastern North Carolina with a lot of folks interested in this type of thing. And after that kind of activity and input, I stand to support this bill and ask you to do so. I think it will be very good for all of North Carolina, particularly those areas that we sometimes feel that we don't get a fair shake. I think that we will get a fair shake so I support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robert Brawley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate the innovativeness and creativity and I also have a lot of respect for tradition, achievement and success. During the debates on the unemployment insurance, we heard comments about how well we've done in North Carolina, reducing our unemployment numbers. And the success we've had there. If you look up economic development in North Carolina, if you Google it you get things like outpace national economy, North Carolina's consistently ranked among the best climates in America, that's business climates in America. Our economic development commerce department is recognized as one of the best in the nation under any standards you look for. And I think we can be proud of what's been done. The opportunity is out there in North Carolina. If not, I certainly would support making the opportunity available for any non-profit corporation that wants to, get involved and complement the successes we do have and what we are doing. But I see absolutely no reason to turn what has been so successful potentially turn it over to a non-profit that's going to be obligated to the people who make the contributions of supporters. You talk about fairness across a state, how is this organization, this non-profit

... going to support the rule area. Well by the way, I looked at the prosperity zones. The prosperity zone I’m in is over 20 percent of the population of North Carolina and some of the most economically advanced. I would think you’ve got a non-profit that’s depending on support, they’re going to look at my district, my are because we’re going to be making a lot of contributions and we’re going to expect them to pay attention. I think the system we have is working and I see no reason at this time to be making a change, and I urge you to vote against the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bill Brawley, 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. As I’ve listened to this debate, first I do want to thank Representative Murry for bringing forth the amendment on the compensation for the board members. It cleared up some questions. The idea of the public money being supplemented by private money I think is a very good thing because businesses seeing business commitment to recruiting business is a powerful story. I did have concerns that were raised about the potential for the money not being spent wisely, and I certainly wanted to commend Representative Glazier on both his candor and courage in recounting the unfortunate outcomes of two things that his party had done with Golden Leaf and the Rural Center, and I certainly appreciate him raising that cautionary tale for us to keep a good eye to keep that from happening again, and I appreciate his cooperation in doing that. Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, I can’t support his bill. I appreciate the intent of the author, and I have a philosophical problem with taking taxpayers’ money and using that to entice, enhance, whatever euphemism you want to use, businesses to locate here. And we’re dividing the whole state up into enterprise zones; how come the whole state can’t be an enterprise zone? I never agreed with having an enterprise zone here and a free trade zone there. If it’s good for there, why not over here and why not over there? The fact that we’re having to put all this language in here about ethics tells you that this thing is rife with potential for bad outcomes, and it’s going to be a long time before we know the full outcome of this. The government spending money to helping, supplementing private dollars and government dollars and mixing them all together, it’s an idea that I personally questioned the validity of from day one. I really don’t… I think a lot of success stories that are pointed to by people saying “Well this was great and this happened because of a public-private partnership,” you don’t know if it may have happened anyway and then better. And one other thing I have an issue with in this bill, which I sat here reading this bill while we’ve been here for a good while, and it’s pretty long and convoluted and complicated, in the back of the bill… I can’t hardly remember now what it was I was going to say, so anyway… I ask you to vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Wilkins, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I know you’re going to say “Oh my goodness, here he goes again,” but I’m going again. To me, this bill is really unfriendly to your rural areas, and quite frankly, I’m not sure how many times some of these rural counties can take another shot in the mouth and still get back up, so I make that point and I move on because you’ve heard it before and you know I’m concerned. If I weren’t concerned, I wouldn’t be standing up right now. The other part that gets me, gets to me about this bill, is that I believe we as legislators…

this into effect are abdicating part of the duties that we swore to perform. Think about it when you hit that button. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I just want to, for the record, say that there was time last year when I supported this bill. I actually have my name on it, I believe, if I'm not mistaken I voted in favor of it in this chamber but that was when I thought that it was truly a public-private partnership and that we were headed towards something that was a real opportunity to bring in the business community and those representing the government for bringing jobs to North Carolina and moving North Carolina forward. The problem that I have with this version of the bill is something that I stated earlier, $250,000 of private investment so that we can turn of 17.5 million dollars of tax payer dollars to a private entity is absurd. It's not a public-private partnership. That $250,000 threshold is less than 1% of the total budget. So I'm concerned that we are giving up our responsibilities as legislators. The oath we took was to represent the people. Our job, our primary job is to set the budget and to execute that budget. By turning over 17.5 million dollars to a private entity with virtually no private support indicates to me that the business community is not entirely behind this or at least the bill drafters think that business community may not be behind this. or else the $250,000 threshold would be a whole lot larger. I urge you to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hastings, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To enter the debate, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I very seldom take people's time to speak but when I ran economic security and jobs that was the top issue and that has been the top issue for a number of years in the rural communities that I represent. If you study in depth our economic development law in North Carolina you know at the local level we can have a line department, we can have an Economic Development Commission, or the statutes also allow for a nonprofit, similar to what we're doing at the state level. What many of you might not know is the state is about 15 years behind Cleveland County. Now, in Gaston we still have an EDC, but in Cleveland County, about 15 years ago we went through this process and it was controversial at the time but if you'll Google Cleveland 2020 you'll see that this same kind of process is set up at the local level in Cleveland County. So I can understand why some might have a little reservation, and it was controversial 15 years ago but it's proven to be a success in Cleveland and I just wanted to commend Representative Murry- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Hamilton, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if my good friend, Representative Hastings, would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well of course. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative Hastings. Just because I'm curious, what is the breakdown of the percentage of private investment in the partnership you're referring to because I can tell you in my neck of the woods it's more than 30% of the total budget. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You can view it online. May I respond? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You can Google Cleveland 2020 and look at the different private investors that have invested and the cooperation that they have with the chamber and they just made a decision to go from a county line department, and an EDC, into what the statutes allow in our economic development law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative, I will certainly go look that up but my guess is it was gonna be more than 1% of the total budget for the year. Would you agree? The private investment piece, I mean. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You can Google it and you can Cleveland 2020 and ask them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And as I was saying before I was interrupted, politely interrupted, I support Representative Murry and would just encourage you to look at what Cleveland County did 15 years ago. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dobson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I'll be brief. I know the afternoon is getting late. I'll just say that no one cares more, or has more concern for the demise of the rural areas than me. That's why I supported and signed on to Representative Holloway's bill concerning our agriculture and our fairs because I think it's important to protect our rural areas. I voted sometimes against my own party because I thought it was to the demise of rural areas. We are hurting. We continue to hurt. One of my counties has a thousand less people now than it did 12 years ago, as many of your rural area counties have. So I get it. I understand that our rural areas are hurting. But let me say no one has took the time like Secretary Decker has to come to the rural areas, to come to my counties and listen and take the time to hear from my constituents and to hear what's going on where we're really hurting in these areas. So if I thought for a second this bill would be hurting rural areas, she would not be for it and her administration. And they have come to us, they've listened to what we've had to say and incorporated our ideas. And frankly I trust what she's trying to do. And if I thought that it was going to hurt rural areas, I would not support this legislation. What we're doing, I know this state as a whole is improving, but we're still struggling. So let's give this a chance to work. Let's try to support this. Let's get behind the secretary and let's give this a chance to work. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Bumgardner, please state your business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I went back and found my place where I lost my train of thought earlier. We're creating a new board here. This bill also, to me, it limits property rights and it does that by telling people how much money they can make. When you have to limit how much money somebody can make, what incentive do they have? Why would they want to go out and build a big company and make all they can make if all they can ever make is $120,000 a year? The other issue is we want them to be successful but we only want them to be so successful, that's why we keep arguing back and forth over how much money we can pay people that work for these companies. And we're using taxpayers' money to pick winners and losers. That's a mistake. I plan to vote no on this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Susan Martin. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in support of this bill and I would like to commend Representative Murry for his hard work with the Department of Commerce in moving this forward. I have some great economic development directors in my rural communities in Wilson and in Pitt counties. I think of Wilson as a little more rural even though we have a lot of that in Pitt County. And the biggest issue that I hear is yes, Secretary Decker has come out and listened and we are very supportive and we're very excited. We're excited to see her vision. But you need to get off the pot and you need to move things forward and enable her to do this work. When I've gone out to them and had the opportunity, what can we do for rural communities. The biggest thing that we can do is to let them get to work and to enable them with this legislation. They are very supportive and I rise to support as rural communities, as well. I think we should vote in favor of this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Whitmire, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Briefly debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill, as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I, too, rise to commend this bill and thank the sponsors and all those that have worked in it. Representative Dobson said earlier, in my district and I drive 285 miles one way to get home, we have had no less than 5 visits by Secretary Decker. I have had plenty of changes earlier to query concerns and such as that. This is a good bill and as we make our state into an area that job providers want to come, this is one more way to make it happen. So I ask that you support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask Representative Murry a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murry, the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gladly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, my friend. I just wanted to give you an opportunity. I've been a little bit confused by some of the debate and it seems that some people are critical because they feel like that the government is not doing enough here. And other people are critical because they're fundamentally opposed to economic incentives. And I just wondered if you could briefly and very clearly kind of point out what are our options here. What's going to happen if we don't pass this bill versus what happens if we do? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I'm glad you brought up the incentives question because...

This public-private partnership is going to be the sales and marketing arm of economic development in the State of North Carolina. Sales and marketing is not what government does well. Sales and marketing is not the job of the government. And that's where the private sector partnership comes in. No incentive grants will be obligated by this public-private partnership. There will be no public funds obligated. And it still remains on the public side of the house, so the debate over incentives is not the subject of this conversation. So you talk about the options. What are options? Right now, I would argue that the existing framework for commerce in our state is rather disjunctive. We've got some great partnerships. We've got great local economic developers. But they're not singing off the same sheet of music. And so that's how I see this public-private partnership. We're going to be talking about the same North Carolina, the same plan, using the Governor's economic development board, the economic development plan that's been created. And use that as a business plan to help market our state and grow our existing industries and recruit new business. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One more brief question if you'll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gladly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Once again, if this bill fails, economic incentives in North Carolina will still go forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's right. The JDIG and ONE NC and all those economic development incentive packages, they're all up for re-authorization in 2016. I expect robust debate but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about sales and marketing. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbitt, please state 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. I've read this over many, many times and I was impressed with one specific part. If you'd look at it. Just the innovation piece imbedded in the science and technology part of this bill will do wonders for North Carolina by itself. I'm in whole support of this bill and I encourage everyone in this Chamber to vote green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a friendly question to Representative Jones. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, I've listened to the exchange here. I just want to ask you a question to make sure that I'm on the same page about what's going on here today. While the dialog went on in regard to what is being debated here, it's not about whether we're going to do away with economic incentives, which under that large umbrella not only includes public dollars for public infrastructure, but also has the aspects of taking tax dollars by force and giving those dollars out to specific private businesses. That economic development term as we currently stands it's current statute covers that whole umbrella. My question to you in regard to that is do you believe that this move here today puts pretty much our economic incentive or economic development strategy in this state on steroids in terms of the way if we have current policy that may be considered bad or good. Therefore, what I'm getting at by your question is that whether the economic incentives is not the debate of the matter is that do you think that we're actually furthering down the wrong road or we're actually going in a better path? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Millis. I'm not sure if I'm smart enough to answer that question or not. I'm just a country dentist from Rockingham County. I just wanted for my friend here to explain the alternatives. There seems to be a little confusion, at least in part of the debate, as far as I was concerned and I just wanted to ask him to clarify that. So I appreciate his clarification and truthfully, I don't know the answer to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Steinburg, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, I rise in support of this bill. I am also one of the folks that has been on the fence for a period of time. I have friends that are involved in the old partnerships. I respect the jobs that they have done over the years. But we have not seen the kind of economic development that time would warrant. It just hasn't been there. And I truly believe that we need to head in a different direction. I had a very successful career in sales and marketing. I don't understand some things about some things, but I do understand sales and marketing and I know how important it is. There's an old adage in sales that nothing happens until something is sold. Nothing. And...

Secretary ??, I’ve heard her name invoked here by many of the members of the House. She is indeed something special. I have over all of my years in my career worked with people in many different states and regions of the country and around the world for that matter, and she is absolutely one of the greatest visionaries that I have ever encountered. She is enthusiastic, she is always there when you need her regardless of how inconvenient it might be and how she’s going to have to rearrange her schedule. I have had her on many occasions call me as late as 9, 10, 10:30 at night to try and firm up something because of a last-minute change she had that would bring her into Northeastern North Carolina to talk with someone who was on the verge of perhaps wanting to invest a significant amount of money in business. We’ve had a lot of economic development in Northeastern North Carolina so far. I’m very encouraged by what we’ve seen. I’m more encouraged by her vision, and so I at this point would encourage you all to accept that vision. Let’s change course. Let’s move in the right direction. Let’s support this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pages, if you’ll please come to the front of the chamber. A moment of envy for Representative Floyd as we dismiss you. Ladies and gentlemen, pages, we appreciate the service to the chamber this week. I hope that you had an opportunity to learn a little bit more about how this process works and I hope you had an opportunity to make some friends among the other pages, and go back to your family and your friends, share the stories of this week, and hopefully encourage them to come and participate and serve this great body. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, let’s show our appreciation to the pages. Thanks again for your service; you’re now dismissed. Have a great summer. Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill as amended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the debate as well as the efforts that were made on the bill, and looking back on what was originally envisioned when we started down this process and looking at where we are today, it’s a little bit disappointing because we’re not considering this bill in the framework of the other things we’ve done to rural North Carolina, and this is the first legislature, for those of you who don’t know you made history, where we had more members from metropolitan urban areas than from rural areas, and so maybe it’s fate that rural areas are going to take it in the shorts, so to speak, every time the issue comes up. And when I say “take it in the shorts”, I’m talking about how we have this effort to provide economic development in these partnerships, but we all know this development, unless we target it and direct it more sufficiently, is going to go where the most money can be made and the easiest development can be done, and that means where we have infrastructure, that means where we have strong educational institutions, that means where we have great quality of life already existing in North Carolina, that means where we have healthcare already existing. You’re not going to get someone to take that risk where the workforce is not there, the infrastructure is not there, the trained population is not there, and get them to compete on a statewide basis with some other part of the state that does not have it. The benefits, the profit margin won’t be there, and so that’s why I’m disappointed that in this bill, and the question was asked, we don’t have specific tiers or some specific way to ensure the development goes to the parts of North Carolina that can’t do it on their own. Yes, let’s have public-private partnership…

But go to where we are having a problem getting the development done. We don't need you in the Triangle. We don't need you in the Triad. We don't need you in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. They are strong enough to stand on their own and get that done. The other areas, particularly in Eastern North Carolina, need this help, but it's not targeted and directed and assured that those who need it the most will get that help. And so, the public-private partnership does not necessarily reach the objective we thought. I would also note that there is no guarantee as to what we'll get from this process, but we do know we're in a different position. We went from ten million dollars needing to be available by the private side of this cooperative effort to two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. And now, we're in a position where we have no guarantee as to where these efforts and resources will go, so I submit to you we could've done better. We should have done better. When you think about the other areas of education where we've so badly hurt our rural areas. When you think about healthcare where we've so badly hurt our rural areas. Where you think about job training and cuts to our universities and especially our community college system. And yet, we have this opportunity. We held out the hope to our rural areas that there might be some salvaging of your future and Representative Wilkins talked about they're just hanging on. This bill won't help them. This bill doesn't give them the incentives. It doesn't direct them to where it's needed to most. And if you were a savvy businessperson. If you were in a non-profit and your objective was to make the best return. You would go where you can get that best return and that would be where the least risk would be. And actually, the greatest return on investment. And that wouldn't be in our rural areas, especially in eastern North Carolina, so again I ask that you go back and look at it. I ask that you - in a conference committee or whatever happens with the Senate - go back and try to help our rural areas of North Carolina. Just don't leave them hanging out to dry time and time and time again, whether it's transportation formulas, education, community colleges, infrastructure, at some point have some mercy on our rural areas of North Carolina. I'd ask that you vote against this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Represeantive Avila, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the bill's sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Murray, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gladly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mister Speaker. I find myself in the same position that Representative Jones was in that between one person talking and another person talking you get kind of confused. And this is sort of the way I've determined what we're trying to do here. Pretty much, it's a consolidation of efforts; of economic development. Right now, we're as you said: fragmented. One section is looking out for themselves here and over there. With the approach that you're taking in view of the marketing and sales department, you got a group that is looking over the whole state and they will work to find companies that - because of the issues and resources that Representative Hall addressed - can only be situated in a certain area, but they will also be looking out for areas that do not have those kind of resources but can support businesses of different types. And when those decisions are made to go into those agreements, our incentives - whatever they may be - is not going to be the Wild Wild West. We're still going to have good supervision, good review, good decisions about how we spend State dollars on incentives for growing businesses in North Carolina. Am I right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I couldn't have said it any better myself. We are one North Carolina. As the tide rises, all our boats are lifted. This public-private partnership sees to make that happen and I would ask your support of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to ask the bill's sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman yields? The Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm a little confused, too. I am totally in support of public-private partnerships. I do believe that you're correct that the - that this body will not do well and our government doesn't do well in sales and marketing, so we should give that. But my question is is that why did it go from ten million to two hundred and fifty thousand and does this really mean that...

It's not really a partnership if we, I hear Representative, her concerns, and why is it $550,000? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's an excellent question. The requirement that came out of the edge committee was actually a ten million dollar threshold before the contract got entered in to. That's a high bar for really no knowledge of whether it's going to ever actually get achieved in a timely fashion to be effective. And so what we did, we, before a contract can get entered in to they have to raise a quarter million dollars. There is an annual fundraising requirement in the first year. That quarter million plus a million and then an annual fundraising requirements of 1.25 million dollars a year over a five year contract period. And so the fundraising requirement has basically been spread out over a five year period instead of 10 million dollars before you ever enter in to the contract it's 6 million dollars over a five year period, which is more reproducable. And from a public funds perspective, I think that the, I think that this entity's going to operate so efficiently that I think that there's going to be less public fund obligation and this is my personal opinion and this is based on conversations with the secretary but just because the Department of Commerce gets funded at a certain level today doesn't mean that entire amount of funding is gonna pass through to the private partnership. That's the goal, it's to de-obligate state from public funds and allowing this partnership to do things in a more efficient way without having additional public funds expended. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1031 as Amended, on it's second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 73 having voted affirmative, 41 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 1031 as Amended is past it's second reading and without objection- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been raised the bill will be ordered engrossed and placed on the calendar for June 10th. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, sometimes it takes me a few minutes to process things like amendments and after I've given it some thought I'd like to have my vote changed on the Glazier Amendment to an aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye on the Glazier amendment. Ladies and gentlemen, for your planning purposes next week. Monday will be a no-vote session, skeleton session, at 4 PM. Tuesday, we anticipate session being at 4 PM and we do anticipate a calendar to dispose of. Wednesday we will come in at 8 AM but purely to gavel in and to recess so that we can do re-referral bills. I believe at that time we will have to do a referral from Appropriations to Finance and back. And then on Thursday, is everybody's favorite day, it's the day that we take up the budget. We will begin at noon. And for your planning purposes, just give this thought, depending upon how long that process goes, it normally goes eight or nine hours, we will determine whether or not we would prefer to stay over, since it's a two-day bill, and vote at midnight so that you can move on early on Friday morning or come back early in the morning for the vote. And we will discuss that some time on Thursday as the debate goes on. So again, 4:00 on Monday, no vote, 4:00 on Tuesday, there will be votes, 8:00 AM on Tuesday, there will be no votes when we gavel in, it will come later in the day if at all, and then 12:00 PM on Thurs-, or 12 noon on Thursday. Notices and announcements, Representative Holloway, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privlege. The House will come to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm wanting to extend some birthday wishes to an individual that I came into legislature with back in 2005. I've got a lot of respect for this individual and have always considered him a mentor and after that Ag Fair thing I thought about being a little bit mean to him but then I realized that usually payback is three-fold so I decided I better just stay nas[??]. But if you will, wish Representative Nelson Dollar a happy birthday. [APPLAUSE] Representative Iler, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement.

...Announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. After being warned that Tuesday would be extremely busy day, we are still going to try to have a full transportation meeting at 12:00 Tuesday in room 463. 'Scuse me 643. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Steinburg, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Change my vote, Mr. Speaker, please on the Glazier amendment to 'yes'. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman be recorded as having voted 'aye'. Representative Saine, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a brief moment in point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal priviledge. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will be brief. But I did want to take a brief moment, before we adjourn, to recognize the life and contributions of Former Representative John R. Gamble, Jr. of Lincoln County, who passed away on Sunday at the age of 92. Dr. Gamble served in the House from 1973 through 1980, and then again from 1991 to 1998. Dr. Gamble graduated from Lincoln High School, Emory University, and the University of Maryland School of Medicine. He did his training in surgery at Charlotte Memorial Hospital and Roanoke General Hospital. He served in the US Army as a M.A.S.H. surgeon in Korea and Japan. He lived his life in Lincolnton and practiced at Reeves Gamble Hospital until it was donated to the county for the formation of the Lincoln County Hospital. Incidentally, he also hired my mother as the first Registrar there. He served multiple terms as Chair of the Lincoln County Commissioners as well as here in the North Carolina House. Despite our political differences, and there were many and I got some classic stories I'll save for another time, the Doc and I forged a friendship during his last term in public office after serving on a bipartisan committee, formed to hire new tax administrator for our county. Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, thank you for your indulgence as we remember Dr. and Representative John Gamble, community leader from Lincoln County, who was laid to rest just maybe an hour or so ago. Please remember him in your prayers and his family and I thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Younts, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to be recorded as voting 'aye' on the Glazier Ammendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman be recorded as voting 'aye'. Representative Hurley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I 'd like to vote 'aye' on the Glazier Ammendment please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady be recorded as having voted 'aye'. Representative Richardson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A moment of personal privilege please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House will come to order. The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to ask all members to join me in wishing Representative Gill a happy birthday. [CLAPPING] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, does the gentleman wish to change his vote on the Glazier Ammendment? [LAUGHTER] [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm considering it. No. This is... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] An inquiry of the Chair, Mr... [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I listened to the schedule and I wonder either of Representive Dollar of for the Chair what the plan is on subcommittees for the budget so we know that? If... [SPEAKER CHANGES] If the Chair does not, if Representative Dollar will return to his seat, we can give him or ask him to provide a brief summary. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Dollar is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We will have subcommittee meetings and the packages will be voted out of subcommittee before they go to the full committee and before they come to the floor. So, it'll be our normal public process. So, just the specific times and all, just stay tuned to your emails and we'll have the specific times for you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen yield for a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative. Just to make sure, are we talking about whatever times it are that the subcommittees will be meeting Tuesday, Wednesday. Or, is there a possibility that we should set aside... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Tuesday, Wednesday and we also obviously have to have full appropriations in there before we come to the floor at the end of the week. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, I regret to inform the body that North Carolina's lost another one of our adopted North Carolinians. Cpt. Jason B. Jones died Monday from wounds received in a firefight in Nangarhar Province, Afghanistan. Cpt. Jones was assigned to Company C, 1st Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group, Airbourne at Fort Bragg. He was 29 and is survived by his wife and parents. Please keep his family in your thoughts and prayers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements.

Representative Lewis is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I move that subject to ratification of bills, messages from the Senate, committee reports, conference reports, re-referrals of bills and resolutions, appointments of conferees, modifications to the calendar, and in memory of former Representative Doc Gamble, that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Monday June 9th 2014 at 4 o’clock pm. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lewis moves, seconded by Representative Hastings, that the House do now adjourn in memory of Representative Doc Gamble, subject to the ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, conference reports, re-referral of bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees and modifications to the calendar, to reconvene on Monday June 9th at 4 pm. All in favor say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All opposed, no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned.