A searchable audio archive from the 2013-2016 legislative sessions of the North Carolina General Assembly.

searching for


Reliance on Information Posted The information presented on or through the website is made available solely for general information purposes. We do not warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of this information. Any reliance you place on such information is strictly at your own risk. We disclaim all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on such materials by you or any other visitor to the Website, or by anyone who may be informed of any of its contents. Please see our Terms of Use for more information.

House | March 24, 2015 | Chamber | House Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The House will come to order. Members will take their seats. Visitors will retire from the chamber. The Sergeant-at-Arms will close the doors. Members and visitors are asked to please silence all electronic devices. Members, today's prayer will be offered by Representative Susan Martin. Members and all guests in the gallery are asked to please stand for the prayer and to remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Representative Martin. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Please join me in prayer. Dear Lord, thank you for this day. We are grateful for the opportunity to come before you with thanksgiving for the many blessings you have given to each of us and poured out on our great state and nation. We are grateful also for the opportunity to bring our requests to you. Thank you for the gift of your word, which provides truth and wisdom to guide us. Isaiah 6:8 says "Whom shall I send?" and the response. "Here I am, Lord, send me." Romans 13:1 states "We submit to governing authorities because all authority comes from God." Esther 4:14 says of a person placed in a position of influence, "...that perhaps you are here for such a time as this." Lord, each of us has accepted the call. You have placed us in our current positions of authority. Help us to recognize that we are here to serve your purpose for your people. As we face difficult situations, controversial decisions, and divisive attacks, I pray that you will unite us through your Spirit. Give us wisdom and discernment to take necessary actions in such a time as this. Help us to forgive as you have forgiven. Let your Spirit so fill us that our thoughts and actions reflect evidence of the fruit of your Spirit, according to Galatians 5:22: "Love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, and self-control." Lord, help us to do all that you require of us, according to Micah 6:8: "to do what's right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God." We lift up Bob Brawley's wife [??] and her family and ask that you, the Great Physician, be with them at this time. We lift up our families who are sacrificing to allow us to serve, our military and their families, our government leaders at every level, and all the people involved in any way in the work we are trying to do here. Bless them and keep them safe. Thank you for the privilege of praying in Jesus' holy name. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett, is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the Journal from March 23 has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Torbett moves that the Journal for March 23 be approved as written. So many favoring the motion will say aye. Those opposed will say no. The ayes have it and the Journal is approved as written. Members, our Nurse of the Day is Rhonda Decker from right here in Raleigh. Ms. Decker, thank you for being here with us today. We hope we don't need your services. [applause] Representatives Brawley, Saine, Hastings, Martin, Setzer, and Szoka are recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Brawley, Saine, Hastings, Martin, Setzer and Szoka; Finance Committee Report: House Bill 152, New Historic Preservation Tax Credit, favorable; Committee Substitute, unfavorable, original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute Calendar, original bill unfavorable, calendar. Representatives McNeill and Ross are recognized to send forth a committee report. The Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives McNeill and Ross; Pensions and Retirement Committee Report: House Bill 50, Amend Mandatory Retirement Age, Judges and Magistrates, favorable; Committee Substitute, unfavorable, original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Original bill, unfavorable, calendar. Committee Substitute, calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 70, Charlotte Firefighters' Retirement, favorable; Committee Substitute, unfavorable, original bill, and referred to appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill is--the original bill is placed on the ...

YLWEEM [0:00:00.0] …Favorable calendar, the committee substitute is re-referred to the committee on appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Elmore, Horn, and Johnson are recognized to send forward the committee report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Elmore, Horn, and P Johnson, Education K-12 Committee report, House Bill 216: Great Leaders for Great Schools/Study. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Favorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 133: Modify Special Education Scholarships. Favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable bill and re-referred to appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute is re-referred to the committee on appropriations; original bill is placed on the unfavorable calendar. Introduction of bills and resolutions, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 321, Representatives Jones, Millis, Riddell, and Pendleton: Convention of States. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary I, if favorable, Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 321, Representatives Jones, Millis, Riddell, and Pendleton: Convention of States. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary I, if favorable, Rules, Calendar, and Operations of the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 322, Representatives Avila, Adcock, and D. Hall: Zoning/Recreational Land Req.-Morrisville. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Local Government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 323, Representatives B. Brown, S. Martin, and Farmer-Butterfield: Reinstate Setoff Debt Collection/UNC Health. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 324, Representatives Cleveland, Lambeth, Conrad, and Shepard: Partisan Bd. of Ed. Elections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Elections. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 325, Representatives Holley and Luebke: Reenact Child Care Credit. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 326, Representative R. Johnson: Lottery Game to Benefit Veterans. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Modification to previous referral of finance, if favorable, appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 327, Representative Dobson. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Bill 326 referred to: Homeland Security, Military, and Veterans Affairs, if favorable, Finance. The clerk may proceed. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 327, Representative Dobson: Allow Use of Pepper Spray by EMS Workers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary II. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 328, Representatives Warren, B. Brown, Collins, and Jordan: Highway Safety/Citizens Protection Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Judiciary I, if favorable, Finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 329, Representatives Watford and R. Brown: School Calendar Flex/Certain School Systems. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Education K-12. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 330, Representatives Insko, Earle, Adcock, and Queen: Expand Medicaid to All Below 133% FPL/Funds. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Health, if favorable, Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 331, Representatives Saine and Setzer: Sheriffs' Supp. Pension Fund/Sick Leave. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Pensions and Retirement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 332, Representatives Hager, Collins, McElraft, and Saine: Natural Gas Econ. Dev. Infrastructure. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Public Utilities. Messages from the Senate, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Following messages received from the Senate. House Bill 41, the Senate Committee Substitute 3rd edition. A bill to be entitled an act to update the reference to the internal revenue code, to decouple from certain provisions of the federal tax increase prevention act of 2014, and to make technical and clarifying changes to various revenue laws, as recommended by the revenue laws study committee for concurrence in the Senate Committee Substitute. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Finance. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wayne, Representative Bell raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The house will come to order, the gentleman is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to move the House Bill 106 be removed from today’s calendar and calendar for Tuesday on March 31st. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there objection, hearing none, calendar. House Bill 143, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Bishop, Cunningham, Cotham, and Bradford, House Bill 143: A bill to be entitled an act amending the charter of the city of Charlotte to increase the number of members on the civil service board from seven to nine. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Bishop raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members Representative Bradford, Cotham, and Cunningham and I sponsored this bill on behalf of the city of Charlotte, it is a local bill to amend the size of the Civil Service Board since 1929… [0:05:00.3] [End of file…]

—the Civil Service Board has been charged with reviewing and approving appointments, promotions, and disciplinary actions involving sworn police officers and firefighters in the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department, and the Charlotte Fire Department. One of the responsibilities of that seven member Board is to conduct appeals hearings in the event of disciplinary actions resulting in suspension, demotion, or termination. There is an objective within the—or a stated period of time—for the conduct of those appeals hearings being thirty days. But that Board, given the requirement to have about a two or three day hearing in each case, has a significant backlog of hearings, and the waiting time to have the hearing concluded has become quite extended. So the city of Charlotte requested a bill that would increase the size of the Civil Service Board from seven members to nine, and empower the City Council to further increase the Board size to eleven, if it should choose to do so in the future. And the purpose is to bring that time—that waiting time to have your appeals hearing concluded—down to a more appropriate level. Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to answer questions, but I yield back. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Haywood, Representative Queen, rise? [no answer] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 143 on its second reading. So [they] favoring passage will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [long pause] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and thirteen [113] having voted in the affirmative, and one [1] in the negative, House Bill 143 passes its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Clerk] [Unintelligible] [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House Bill 143 on its third reading. So [they] favoring passage of the Bill will say aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The ayes have it, and House Bill 143 passes its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. Members on behalf of all members of the House, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to the Parents for Educational Freedom in North Carolina, and several Opportunity Scholarship recipients, parents, and families. If you all would please stand so that we could welcome you here to the house today. Thank you for being with us. [APPLAUSE] House Bill Thirteen [13], the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Clerk] Representative Torbett, House Bill 13, a Bill to be [entitled], an act requiring each child presented for admission into the public school for the first time to submit proof of a health assessment, and requiring a Health Assessment Transmittal Form to be permanently maintained in the child's official school record. The [??] of North Carolina, in [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Glazier] To set forth an amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an Amendment. The clerk will read the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Clerk] Representative Glazier moves to amend Amendment One [1] on page One [1], line thirteen [13] by deleting the number thirty [30], and submitting the number sixty [60]. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman from Cumberland is recognized to debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Glazier] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and this is just a conforming amendment because the two amendments passed in the night, One [1] and Two [2]. When 1 passed before 2 did, it had the old number, this makes it conform to the Cunningham Amendment, so there's no change, it's just a conforming amendment, and I don't believe there's any opposition. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Torbett] To speak on the Amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman has the floor to debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Torbett] I concur with Representative Glazier's analogy of the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of Amendment Three [3] sent forth by Representative Glazier. So any favoring adoption of the Amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [long pause] Representative Alexander, does the gentleman wish to record on this vote? [pause] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and fifteen [115] having voted in the affirmative, and none in the negative, the Amendment is adopted. Now back on the Bill: Further discussion, further debate? If not— Question? The Chair will go ahead, the Chair sees the lady's light. From Buncombe, for what purpose does the lady from Buncombe, Representative Fisher, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Fisher] To debate the Bill—briefly—Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The lady has the floor to debate the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we have had some good amendments to this bill. There's been a lot of good debate about this bill, and it's been a little while before we talked about it before. But I did want to sort of remind the body of some of the potential problems that are inherent with this legislation. One of which is that we know that there was a figure that I think Representative Leubke stated in the debate last week that spoke to the fact that there are probably 4% of students who are without their health care assessment, at the 30-day point into the school year. So they're already in school, they do not have their health assessment, and we risk the possibility of their being put out of school for this now 60-days, until they can get the health assessment. And so many of us are concerned, and when I say many of us I would suggest that all of us are concerned about the ability for achievement levels to be reached within a school year, and what we are essentially doing is making it that much harder for our students to meet these deadlines learning achievements levels all through the course of a school year. So there's one hurdle. Another one is that we are looking at making it difficult for poorer children to comply with this requirement. We know that there's a backlog at the Health Department right now, today, for children looking to get that health assessment done in time to meet what will be this new requirement in the law. And so I stand here today just to tell you of my reservations about this legislation, and ask you all to think about whether or not you might have some reservations about this legislation, and to let you know that based on these question marks that I have, I will have to vote no on this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 13 on its third reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [PAUSE] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 92 having voted in the affirmative and 23 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 13 passes its third reading. The bill is ordered engrossed and sent to the Senate. House Bill 173, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stam, Faircloth, Glazier and R. Turner, House Bill 173, a bill to be entitled An Act to Amend Various Criminal Laws with the Purpose of Improving Trial Court Efficiency. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen, I believe it was last Wednesday we passed this on second reading. I believe 116 votes. Representative Glazier has worked with Representative Bishop to offer an amendment which I consider relatively technical and they know a whole lot more about it than I did, anyway. So I encourage you to vote for it, and if you have further questions I had a couple of questions from other members about a particular section and I believe we've got that resolved so any further questions, I'll be glad to answer. And I would ask that either Representative Glazier or Bishop. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To set forth an amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to set forth an amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier moves to amend the bill on page 8, line 34, by rewriting the line to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Cumberland has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and credit to Representative Bishop who caught this. This is a change in the rules of evidence in North Carolina in both civil and criminal cases and we were trying when this was drafted, to track the federal rule but the federal rule used a term called certification that there is no North Carolina equivalent to directly. But we call what amounts as close to certification, a document under seal. So you'll see

—that term in here. This was to comport with the federal rules by using our terminology, and we also ran it by several evidence professors at law schools to make sure about this. I know of no opposition, and I appreciate again Representative Bishop catching this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Further discussion, further debate on the Amendment? If not, the question before the House is Amendment Two [2], sent forth by Representative Glazier. So any favoring adoption of the Amendment will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, and the clerk will open the vote. [long pause] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and fourteen [114] having voted in the affirmative, and none in the negative, the Amendment is adopted. We are now back on the Bill. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee Substitute, House Bill 173, on its third reading. So any favoring passage of the Bill will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [long pause] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and thirteen [113] having voted in the affirmative, and one [1] in the negative, the House Committee Substitute, House Bill 173 passes its third reading. The Bill is ordered engrossed, and sent to the Senate. House Bill Twenty Nine [29]; the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Clerk] Representatives L. Johnson, Glazier, Holloway, and Horn, House Bill 29, a bill to be entitled: an Act to Make Organizational and Technical Changes to the Courses of Study Statutes, Johnson of North Carolina [enacts]. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the lady from Cabarrus, Representative Johnson, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Johnson] To speak on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The lady has the floor to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Johnson] Ladies and gentlemen, about last October, Representatives Glazier, and Holloway, and Horn, and I realized that we hadn't had a cleanup of our Course of Study statutes in twenty years. So we decided that since we were in the interim, we would work on that. And that's exactly what this Bill is, just a cleanup, and I wanna thank all of those who did not add their amendments to it, so that we could clearly call this a technical bill. And, Mr. Speaker, I think Representative Glazier has a couple of bullet points to speak to. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Glazier] To briefly debate the Bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman is recognized to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Glazier] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and, again, thanks to staff. This, actually, really is pretty important. It's all technical but it consolidates in one place in the statutes the substantive contents of all the curriculum. Issues, and directives that we have had in multiple different statutes to school systems, so now you can tell your constituents, and we can tell our school boards, that there's one place in the statues that you can find everything. It does three other things, though. One: It eliminates the reference to the Basic Education Plan, which has long been defunct, and ought not have stayed in the statute— but does still keep in the requirement that the state put in place, whatever the curriculum will be, whenever that's decided, so that that's clear. It also keeps our commitment, as we have to constitutionally, to fund as needed schools to make sure we meet our constitutional mandates, so that language hasn't changed. And then you'll see some clarifying language that isn't substantive change, but where we've changed terminology over the years and the statute hasn't caught up with it? That change is made consistent all the way through the statutes. I know of no objection to the BIll, it really has been a work by staff, and Representative Johnson, Representative Horn, and Representative Holloway, and Representative Stam as well, I want to thank because his office read through the Bill as well. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gilford, Representative Brockman, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Brockman] To ask that my vote be recorded as aye on the last vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye on the previous Bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Speciale] To see if the Bill's sponsor would answer a question. Representative Johnson. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Does the lady from Cabarrus yield to the gentleman from Craven? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Johnson] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Speciale] Is there anything in this Bill that promotes Common Core? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Johnson] No, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Speciale] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Pittman] Sorry, sir. I would like to change my vote on House Bill 173 to a no. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman will be—

JBUSOG [0:00:00.0] …Just having voted no on House Bill 173. Members also the Chair would like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to a group of students visiting today from Kimmel Farm Elementary School in Winston-Salem, if you all would please stand so that we could see where you are and welcome you. Thank you for being here. [Applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Arp raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ask bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Cabarrus yell to the gentleman from Union? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Johnson, according to I don’t know what section it is but 115C 81.25 health education, would you explain the technical corrections there please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry gave me that number again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s the health education section under 115C 81.25, on page 3 I’m sorry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, Representative Arp, I don’t nearly changes that are there, there might be someone else that knows of any, all we did was move the legislation into one place there aren’t any changes other than technical. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose…Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 29 on its second reading, so many favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 110 having voted in the affirmative and five in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 29 passes its second reading and will without objection be read the third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of House Committee Substitute for House Bill 29 on its third reading, so many favoring passage of the bill will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Those oppose will say no, the ayes have it, and the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 29 passes its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. House Bill 82, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stevens, Zachary, Glazier, and Jordan, the House Bill 82: A bill to be entitled an act clarifying the manner in which a law enforcement officer may take custody of a juvenile when executing a nonsecure custody order under the laws pertaining to abuse, neglect, and dependency. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, the members of the house I think the first thing I found in the committee is I needed to explain about a nonsecure custody order is, a nonsecure custody order is when the Department of Social Services has found that a child is in danger of continual abuse, they go to the judge and the judge then issues an order to have that child picked up and move to place of safety, the first thing they are supposed to do is social services tries to work with a family to give a safety plan, and they say, “Would you be wiling to put them in a foster care or would you be willing to put them with another relative?” So they explain that when they don’t get any satisfaction in that way they go to the court and get a nonsecure custody order. This statue amends that to say that as part of that nonsecure custody order the judge if they hear evidence of exigent circumstances, emergency circumstances can direct that law enforcement go into the house even by forcible entry and physically take the child, to take the child to a point of safety, but it has to be again specifically authorize by judge, it’s not been in statue before and apparently they have had some situations particularly in Cumberland County where this became important to be able to go immediately and get child with somebody ??. So I would ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the House Bill 82 on its second reading, I will call on the gentleman on third reading with the question. The passage of House Bill 82 on its second reading, so many favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Representatives… [0:05:00.4] [End of file…]

The members wish to record on this vote? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 113 having voted in the affirmative and one in the negative, House bill 82 passes its second reading. The, does the gentleman from Craven wish to object to third reading to debate the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to debate. I don't want to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's objection to third reading is noted with, without objection the speaker, the, strike that. The bill is on for third reading. The gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale is recognized to debate the bill. Clerk will read the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] General assembly of North Carolina and acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now the gentleman from Craven has the floor to debate the bill a third time, from the third reading. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'd like to ask a question of the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Surry yield to the gentleman from Craven? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I didn't fully understand the answer to this question in committee, so I'm gonna ask it again, okay? Officers have the authority already in exigent circumstances to go into that house and take that child. I don't understand what the purpose of this bill is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I respond? Exigent circumstances can be very different things in a child abuse case, and it can be that this child has been seriously injured and that they're simply hiding them. That can be the basis the judge finds for it to be exigent circumstances to allow law enforcement to go straight in. In committee, we talked about exigent circumstances, you get there, somebody's screaming. You get there, and with children, sometimes you don't know if their screams are play or if their screams are fun, but you've got a pretty dramatic situation already, and it may be that the family's just hiding this child and refusing to come to the door. It may be that one parent has the child physically held captive while the other parent refuses to come to the door. It could be any number of circumstances, but we can't define all those circumstances, which is why we leave it to the judge to determine that there's something especially a problem in this case that you need the authority to go in and get them right away. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, mister speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker, and I agree completely with Representative Stevens but would add this point. The law is, as Representative Speciale suggested, under the domestic 50A law. That is, the provisions we're looking at are under 50A-311, but they were never added to the juvenile code, so it's taking what we have in one area and saying it's got to apply here, and that's just been sort of a gap that's existed, but it is exactly the provisions that we allow in out of state custody orders being transferred to the juvenile court. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To request to change my vote from a no to a yes on that one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will be recorded as having voted yes on the second reading of House bill 82. Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the passage of House bill 82 on its third reading. So many favoring passage of the bill will say aye. Those opposed will say no. The ayes have it, and House bill 82 passes its third reading and will be sent to the Senate. The chair would just remind the members, once the question is put, I'm supposed, the chair is supposed to end debate at that point, but the chair has a couple of times noticed where folks have turned their lights on right as the chair was putting the question. I would request members if members know they're gonna debate the bill to go ahead and have their lights on so that we'll know. House bill 106, the clerk will read. Strike that, the bill's been removed from today's calendar. House bill 146, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Lambeth, Jones, Conrad, and Ross. House bill 146, a bill to be entitled an act enabling the need to have advanced health care directives to health care power of attorneys signed in the presence of two witnesses and acknowledged before a notary public and instead allowing the execution by either signature, the presence of two witnesses, or acknowledgment before a notary public. General assembly of North Carolina and acts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have an amendment. Perhaps you might want to recognize a sponsor first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll do that. We'll come back to you, Representative Stam. For what purpose does the gentleman from Forsyth, Representative Lambeth rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. This bill is perhaps the simplest, most common sense bill you'll have this session. It changes one word, and it

Advanced DIrective is also known as the Living Will, in which a person specifies which actions are to be taken regarding their health if they're no longer able to make decisions on their own. Because the documents are essential for effective planning and end-of-life decisions, North Carolina, like many states, has statutory forms which can be completed by laypersons. North Carolina is one of only four states that require a notary AND two witnesses to execute the document. In North Carolina, among other conditions, a qualified witness may not be a relative of the person signing the document, a member of the signer's medical team, or an employee of a treatment provider or nursing facility where the signer resides. Because conversations regarding healthcare planning often occur in hospitals, it can be extremely difficult to find two witnesses who are non-family members or healthcare staff and a notary public— especially if the patient wants to complete the documents at night or during the weekend. In the 44 states that do not require a notary, there does not appear to have been a pattern of abuse. I have a number of support letters across the state to support this change. This Bill simply allows the word 'and' to be changed to 'or' so it allows an individual to use a notary OR two witnesses. I know Representative Jordan has some concern with this Bill, and I want to allow him an opportunity to make those comments— and then I recognize that Representative Stam has a Amendment that I do support, by the way. I encourage you to support this Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Members, on the motion of the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager, the Chair would like to extend the courtesies of the gallery to a group of students, family members, teachers visiting from Thomas Jefferson Classical Academy. If you could all please stand so that we could welcome you today to the House of Representatives. [applause] And, if you're looking for him, that's Representative Hager standing right here waving to you. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the representative from Ashe, Representative Jordan, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Jordan] To debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman has the floor to debate the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Jordan] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have the greatest respect for the sponsors of this Bill. I want to start with, first of all, I don't know why he said it would be a simple Bill. What we're dealing with here today are documents called Advanced Directives. They are extremely important documents that convey certain important rights that we have to others, to our agents. If you will look at the Bill, itself, you can see some statutory forms of what these documents look like. I'm gonna point to— [crosstalk] [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] ??... if the gentleman from Ashe would please suspend. I'm noticed some rule breakers so, in that case, we're gonna suspend Rule 12. The gentleman has the floor to continue debating the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Jordan] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Some of the language that are in these Healthcare Power of Attorney or Living Will, which are both Advanced Directives, set out how important this is. One of them, the Healthcare Power of Attorney, says, "This document gives the person you designate as your healthcare agent, broad powers to make healthcare decisions for you when you cannot make the decision yourself, or cannot communicate your decision to other people. You should discuss your wishes concerning life prolonging measures, mental health treatment, and other healthcare decisions, with your healthcare agent." The other document—you may have heard of it as a DNR, Directive for Natural Death or Living Will: "You can use this Advanced Directive to give instructions for the future if you want your healthcare providers to withhold or withdraw life prolonging measures in certain situations. You should talk to your doctor about what these terms mean. The Living Will states what choices you would have made for yourself if you were able to communicate. Talk to your family members, friends, and others you trust about your choices. Also, it is a good idea to talk with professionals such as your doctors, clergypersons, and lawyers before you complete and sign this LIving Will." This is not a simple bill. Advanced Directives are extremely important and if you have not seen the language in these documents, and you do not have these documents for yourself, I would plead with you to get these documents in place, for you and for your families. Get them in place. You never know when something might happen. I'm an attorney in a small mountain community and I do several dozen of these actual documents ever year. And when this proposal came up, it struck a nerve with me, and that's why I immediately responded, that's why I'm standing—

here debating what has been claimed to be a simple bill. It absolutely is not. These documents are executed to protect important decisions regarding life and health, made by an individual while they’re in full control of their capacity to make such decisions. A secondary reason/purpose is to protect from liability any healthcare worker who follows these directives. So these documents are to protect folks. They are to protect the people who are executing the documents and they are to protect the healthcare workers who are dealing with these situations and dealing with these documents. As such, it is in the best interest of the individual as well as the healthcare profession to make sure that such directives are done in a complete and voluntary manner. You’ve heard the bill’s sponsors say what we are given here is basically a choice. The current law says that you have to have two things at the end, a notary, which tells you that the person signing this document is who they say the are; you also need two witnesses to sign. Well, the two witnesses are there to say yeah, this person wasn’t completely raving and out of their mind, that nobody took their hand and made them write their signature, and that it doesn’t seem like they were being coerced by anyone. And that’s what’s important about this choice here. You need both of these things. You need a notary and you need two witnesses, both. That’s why this state has it because it protects everyone. And I really don’t care how many other states don’t do it. It’s irrelevant to me. The right thing, the thing that I’ve seen in my practice over years is that you need both of these because you never know when a healthcare worker is going to be faced with a document that was not signed by the person it purports to have been. Having a notary there helps to protect against that. Nothing guarantees stopping fraud, but having a notary making sure that person is who they say they are. The two witnesses give you some objective people who are they, who are not part of the healthcare facility, who are not relatives of the person, who can say this person seemed like they were rational, they were in their right mind. And so I think they were not being coerced, they did it voluntarily. Notary is a pretty easy thing to get. It’s a two-day course or two evening course, a book and then your stamp is good for five years. Attorneys can become notaries without passing the written exam, although when I took mine I was in law school, so I did have to pass the exams. And it’s not hard to have a notary on staff of a large healthcare facility or any healthcare facility. I think most of your admitting personnel could be a notary. Finding two witnesses is sometimes complicated, as you heard the bill sponsor say. Coming from a small law office, I agree, it can be. But we’re dealing with something that’s very important and so you plan and you get those in place. I’ve been to visit people at their homes in the mountains, and taken these things to repair, extra copies of the document, bring a notary, make sure their witnesses are available, some neighbors. So these things can be planned for. What I do not want to see us do is change something that may not have seemed important to you at first. I hope I’m explaining that it is important. I do not want to see us change this for the convenience of anyone. This is a protection for the people who are executing these documents. We need both of these. They serve completely different requirements. And I would say make it some of the most protective language in the country. Do you want to see yourself strip the protective language away from our elderly, our sick, our infirm and see fraud occur more often than it already is without having a notary requirement, without having two witnesses. From my small county, I’ve actually seen this kind of fraud. You wouldn’t believe the kinds of family situations you might see. And I know there are family members who would take Momma or Daddy to get him to sign some document at the bank--just sign this thing, it’s not real--it’s not a big deal, just sign it and have it notarized. And it gives away very important, valuable rights. This is just the DNRs, just the advance directives. So to strip it back around, this is not a simple bill. This is a bill where we’re deciding if you pull away protections for our citizens. We can plan for having a notary. We can plan for having two witnesses to get these things signed. People ought to really, to come down to the bottom line, they really need to get these things done before they’re in the hospitals, before they’re in healthcare situations. That’s why I want you all to start by making sure you do it and tell your constituents to get it done because then you can visit an attorney and it doesn’t cost much.

it doesn't cost much to do something like an advanced directive, a living will, a healthcare power of attorney. So please, do not pull these protections away. I would ask you to vote no on this bill. Let's leave the law the way it is. There's no compelling reason to change it, the only reason I've seen is convenience, but the downside is dramatic and I hope I've led you to understand that. I hope I've led you to read some of these documents. If you're making a change to the law and you've not read these documents, shame on you. You make sure you know what's in these documents because every one of you needs one. Please vote no. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Johnston, Representative Daughtry, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, this bill came through Judiciary I. It was unanimously voted in favor, everybody voted in favor of the bill. We had witnesses who testified that everybody should plan for their demise, we all are going to die, but there is something about that that we don't do. So we wind up in the hospital, in critical condition on some occasions, and that person who is sick wants a living will, he wants to plan, and while you're in the hospital you've got to find a notary and two disinterested witnesses. That is sometimes difficult. The hospitals say it's very difficult. All this does is let you have a notary or two witnesses to make the instrument valid. It is, I know of no opposition to it in our committee and I strongly urge you to vote for this very common sense bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Randolph, Representative Hurley, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Forsyth yield to the lady from Randolph? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, I'm over this way. As a clerk, a Deputy Clerk in the Clerk of Courts Office, we have seen where it has been forged and there are other things happening and with people printing today we don't always know that it is the person. I just wondered if you could pull this and maybe have discussion. I'm sorry, I have not had a chance to really look at that, I've been a little bit busy. I just felt like, you know, I'm not doing anything disrespectful, I just wondered if you could possibly pull it and maybe discuss it. I think it may be a good bill and it may be convenient but I've seen things that can really happen bad in this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My suggestion would be, if you object to third reading and we'd have an opportunity to discuss it further, but I'd like to go ahead and get a vote today if we could. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Glazier, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] First, to see if Representative Lambeth might yield for a question and then perhaps to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Representative Lambeth, when I first read it, and I certainly understand the reason for the bill, but I am real concerned about the point that Representative Jordan makes and that now Representative Hurley's made, and from my practice as well, because I used to do some of this work, and I do think Representative Jordan's made the point about the two distinct issues between witnesses and notaries, so my question first is, what's the protection if we take the witnesses out for the sort of, for lack of a better term, sanity or competency determination? Because the notary doesn't give that. So I'm wondering what the substitute would be in that circumstance if the witnesses are out of the picture. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I'd have to tell you that I've worked in a hospital where this actually was a real issue and I would attest that the witnesses don't necessarily do that either. They often, because this often happens late shifts, early mornings, which really is hard to find a non-employee witness, that they will approach someone walking down the hall and they asked him to simply come in. So, while I know from a legal standpoint that may be a concern, the practical side when witnesses are often asked, they don't do that. They're just simply looking at a signature that know that that person who actually signed it signed that document. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Thank you, Representative Lambeth. This is a tough call because I think Representative Lambeth makes the oint about, and Representative Daughtry did, the Speaker did earlier on convenience, but I'm really concerned here that there's no

Speaker changes:in some cases the witness doesn't do anything than ?? they serve to say that this person ?? I'm wondering if wee pulled if there was ?? bit i have to today but i wonder if that have to occur ?? institutions that the witness is not practically visible there is that it makes some sense that you gotta do something but to do it for everybody under this circumstance i do think a way real protection that we would have it to see for any other circumstance?? before the bill passes the house right now i have to vote no because i have to about protection issue thank you Speaker changes:for what purpose does the gentlemen from ?? rise Speaker changes: to ask representative Jordon a question Speaker changes:Representative Jordan did you yell Speaker changes:i yell Speaker changes:?? lemme ask you this question ?? this power attorney this ?? can it be given follow an individual to terminate the life for any other individual ?? could that person who have that power to that under this Speaker changes:my i respond Speaker changes:yes you my respond Speaker changes:yes sir ?? that as a portion of he health care power attorney when it is also the entire reason for the living will Speaker changes:follow up Speaker changes:so if you have the situation where the ?? you wanted get t escape of the individual they go out in there and ?? this could happen if don't keeps these protection on these ?? Speaker changes:may i respond Speaker changes:respond Speaker changes:it could happen and it is happened Speaker changes:for what purpose does the gentlemen from?? Speaker changes:to debate the bill Speaker changes:you have the floor to debate the bill Speaker changes:thank you Mr. speaker ?? plenty of speakers wanted to speak just want to make one point that was made earlier was said that the in 46 states both the 46 states are not required i think that you should also know that the north Carolina recognizes those health ?? from those states so if you re here in that situation i state recognizes ?? so if you have your advance health care detective done in 46 other states it's but not in north Carolina so you know i agree a lot ?? Representative Jordan said and one thing i would certainly agree with is that everyone should have living will it is best for the person in question it is best for the family ?? situation as well as the health care providers when they so forth the situation happens i simply ?? think in the world that we live in perhaps the protection we like to see and ?? dependent on provision that only three other state have the truth of the matter is that the people are bound into determine ?? but i don't think ht something is this important we should be putting additional obstacles in the path of people that need this and so i some of the sponsors of this bill and i would encourage to for it and i certainly don't have problems with this bill with the objections ?? discussion but but i do support this bill Mr.speaker thank you Speaker changes:for what purpose does the lady from ?? Speaker changes:do ask Representative Jordon a question Speaker changes:Representative Jordon do you yell for question Speaker changes:yes sir i do Speaker changes:Representative Jordon you are absolutely correct that people's ??

and I can see that you care deeply about your clients who may come to you to fill out these forms. Is there anything in this bill that would prevent you or any other attorney, even though it would not be mandated to have both witnesses and a notary, to perhaps advise your clients that that would be a safeguard. Is there anything in this bill that would prevent you from doing that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Not that I'm aware of. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. May I also debate the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This bill has really come at the request of those institutions, as Representative Lambeth mentioned, hospitals, hospice, where individuals don't do as Representative Jordan suggested, plan for the future, but it's a crisis situation. And with so many people omitted as being qualified to be as witnesses, whether it's the doctor, the hospital personnels, or relatives, there are often very few other options in a hospital or hospice situation to find those individuals. More often they may be visitors of someone else who's sick. So they are not people that would actually know the patient, to know about the situation that their in, and their dealing with their own crisis with a relative and to impose on them to be a witness in a different situation, sometimes it's very difficult to approach people. So I would ask for your support for the bill and that, as Representative Jordan said, if there's any attorneys that have concern with it and wanted to advise their clients to take extra precautions, that's certainly justified. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm going to speak to you a moment from personal experience. When my Mother, when we realized her mind was starting to go I managed to get her power of attorney but she never would give me medical power of attorney and by this time, it has been long since, that she's not competent to give it. It would be really convenient for me if I could get it without her approval or that sort of thing but I wouldn't want to take that chance and I'll tell you why, I know of a young man and his wife who, when his Grandmother was declining, getting near the end of her life, managed to move in with her and proceeded to rob her blind, stole all kinds of stuff out of her house and sold it and spent a lot of it on drugs, not legitimate drugs. Medication that was intended for her they took and sold. A lot of food that was brought in, it was intended for her, they ate, and virtually starved her to death. His Grandmother was my Uncle's wife. So it was my cousin that did that. I shudder to think, with me living five hours away from my Mother, what he might have done, he and his wife, if they could have gotten in with my Mother, gotten a hold of her. I don't want to make it any easier for anybody to weasel their way in and do something like this and so I ask you not to vote for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Pendleton, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I stand to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have been an estate planning ward for 38 years and also happen to have served on a hospital board but I am opposed to this bill, if for no other reason than the people in this room, for you and your families. If you go in to a hospital and you don't have a living will or power of attorney, whatever, you go in to a hospital and they go get two people in the hall to sign this is you, well first of all the patient's not going to have any ID, most likely the patient will have no ID, so these people are signing this thing not even with proof that that is the real human being. This is greatly increase fraud among people who have been married two or more times, two or more times. So I would encourage us not to change the laws that now exist. It protects you and your families. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Ashe arise, Representative Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquire the previous speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, inquire, you may

Have you had a chance to look over the document I have provided, on your desk? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you know the purposes of the witnesses? Is it for identification or is it for some other purpose? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield for another question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I do! I've always assumed when I sit in on them and I witness them, it's so we know who this person is who's signing it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield for a follow up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would it surprise you to understand that it's the notary that's there for identification and the witnesses are there for other purposes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whatever you tell me, that I've always understood it the other way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, that's all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Wilson, Farmer-Butterfield, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I wanted to ask Representative Jordan a question, if I many? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm particularly interested in this subject because I had health care power of attorney for my father before he passed when he was 96, and I encourage people in doing future planning every day when I work with them to put these in place. Health care directives and advanced directives and those kind of things. And I wanted to ask you, do you know how often financial exploitation and fraud occurs in the states that have passed this type of legislation versus North Carolina? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm sorry, I don't. I only practice in North Carolina so that's the only state, and of course my portion of the state is the only portion of the state I could speak to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you give [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Could you give a couple more specific examples of how fraud and financial exploitation can occur if we pass this bill, because I'm concerned about it too? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Representative Farmer-Butterfield. My explanation would be related to what Representative Michaux was discussing. If someone is able to get a power over someone to be their health care agent, and they were not, they did it fraudulently, while that person was under anesthesia or undergoing some procedure, and the doctors discovered other episodes, other things going on, that health care agent makes the decision whether they should proceed with those other items or bring the person out of anesthesia. And someone who is wanting to move along to the estate portion of someone's life could make a decision based on that self-interest. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Baumgartner, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Representative Jordan a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield to all inquiries. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan, did you just say that you don't know what other three states have laws similar to ours? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. I do not know the other states. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You don't know whether Florida [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's hard for me to ask you a question to ask him, sorry. But follow up. You don't know whether Florida's one of those states? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's right, I do not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's my question. I happen to know they have a lot of practice in this area, and a lot of expertise and you know, this bill to me is a, can I debate the bill now, sorry? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. This is close and this is not that easy a decision to make on whether to say it's okay to lessen the requirements for getting this done. And so if what we've been doing is working, then we might be making a change for the sake of change. I understand that some of the hospitals may want to change it and make it easier because it could be a problem for them if it's so easy to get a notary then maybe they want to keep one around on every shift, just in case they need one. I don't know. It's just a thought I had. But I don't think I could support this bill at this time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Floyd from Cumberland arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the bill sponsor will yield for a question, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I will. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] How time sensitive is this bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's not. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield for a follow up questions? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you be amenable to Representative ?? question that she asked before

earlier. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, if I might interrupt, there's only speaker left. And we'd probably be--there's two, actually, now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you be amenable? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to ask the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You will be amenable to her request about the time-sensitive that we may pull this and come back because it doesn't look like it's going to be good today. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chair, if I could respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Lambeth, will you respond to the question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. I don't want to delay the debate any longer than we need to. I do view this as a very simple bill. What many of the issues discussed would not change, if you want to have fraud, you can create a situation where there will be fraud. I do believe this is a change that would make it easier for advanced directives in a hospital or other healthcare setting environment. But because the debate has gone on and on an on, I'm certainly willing to displace it and recalendar it for a future date and give us an opportunity to work with those who are concerned, if you would like to do that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are you making a motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will make that motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Then what is the motion? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To displace it and calendar it for a future date. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For tomorrow at 2:00. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. The bill is displaced. House Bill 201. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stam, Goodman, Jackson, Fraley. House Bill 201, a bill to be entitled An Act to Amend the Process by Which the City Councils Receive Citizen Input in Zoning Ordinance Amendments. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill at great length. To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The person has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, the almost definition of democracy is the acts of the majority are the acts of the group. A Supreme Court--a North Carolina Supreme Court case cites Jefferson Manual, Jefferson's Manual of 1801, for this proposition: "The voice of the majority decides for the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, et cetera, when not otherwise expressly provided." So that, for example, you all remember the huge tax increase in 1993, passed by two votes in the U.S. House, and one vote in the U.S. Senate. The IRS will collect those taxes as vigorously as taxes which passed unanimously. Democracy with a small "d" is what we have. But, because we're also a republic, we have protections for the minorities, to protect their fundamental rights. So, for example, if we want to do away with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, those who don't like the decisions therein, they realize that they have to have a constitutional amendment, proposed by two-thirds of the U.S. House, two-thirds of the U.S. Senate, and ratified by 38 states. In North Carolina, to pass a constitutional amendment, is three-fifths here, three-fifths in the Senate, plus a majority of the voters. North Carolina law requires a majority vote for the approval of a special or conditional use through quasi-judicial proceedings. So we can amend our constitution, approve special uses, with a substantially smaller vote than what one individual or two individuals or a group of individuals can trigger for a rezoning. I shared a true story with the local government committee. I'd like to share it with you as well. When I was seven or eight years old, I lived in Greensboro. A couple of blocks away, I had a wonderful tree house that I really enjoyed playing in every day. And I came home one day to find the tree cut, a house being built. For those of you in Greensboro, this was the corner of Edgewater and Homewood, right by Friendly Shopping Center. And I came home, bitterly complaining to my

mother, that they had taken down my tree, and that this should not be allowed to happen. And she very wisely told me that when I grew up, I could buy my own tree, and be in charge of my own tree, and that until I was able to do that I should stop crying about it and grow up. Which I did. People always like to control other people's property. It's a universal tendency. And there's ways to control other people's property. Restrictive covenants, easements, half a dozen other legal ways to control other people's property. But to do that, you have to have a legal right to do it, and it's precisely because neighbors often have no legal right to control other people's property, that they want to do it through this super-majority requirement that's in our protest petition law today, that's been there about 90 years. But whatever may have been the reason 90 years ago, it no longer applies. For the last 26 years, property owners have been able to tailor their rezoning requests as a conditional use, to provide a better fit within the specific environments of their site, and many city councils require that, and just won't pass it without that. Many local governments now require applicants to meet with not only adjacent owners, but also those within a large area, to inform them of the request and to solicit their input, which can be addressed in the form of conditions. If the protest petition 90 years ago was envisioned as a means of leveling the playing field and assuring notification of and input from adjacent owners, then current practices more than suffice. Rezonings today don't take months, they take long, long periods, sometimes years. Which sometimes cause the projects to fail, not because the property owner doesn't want to do it, not because a majority of the elected council members don't want to do it, but because a minority of the council don't want to do it. That's not democratic government, that's rule by minority. If you were going to have a different vote for a rezoning than a majority, it would make more sense to say that it shall be rezoned unless three-fourths of the council supported it. Because the property owner actually has the fundamental right to use the property, whereas the neighbors do not. If they had wanted to have a fundamental right with regard to the property, they would have bought that right or inherited it or traded for it, which, by definition, they hadn't. Our state supreme court, a couple of years ago, in High Rock Lake Partners vs. NCDOT said this: To confirm that we all enjoy "due process rights that protect property owners from state delegations of power that give neighbors the authority to regulate the way another person uses his or her property." The protest petition law we have flies in the face of this principle. Now, the bill itself was before this body two years ago, and as part of another bill, passed by about 85 to 25 or something like that. I think that this bill is an improvement on what this House has already passed, because in the first part of the bill, on page one, we make clear that not only adjacent owners, but anybody in the city can protest a zoning change, and that that protest will be brought to the attention of the council if they just get it two days early. Not just the people who happen to border it. What it doesn't do is allow this minority of the citizens to change democracy into something less than a democracy by saying that you have to have a three-fourths vote to do it. In section--on page two of the bill, repeals the sections about giving the three-fourths vote. Section 3 is just a conforming change. Section 4 is what it is. Section 5 fixes a problem. This only applies to cities, by the way. Counties, 99 counties don't have this protest.

vote provision for their zoning, but cities also have a very strange provision, and it's on page two, line 31-34, "in all other cases a failure to vote by a member who is physically present in the council chamber or who has withdrawn without being excused by majority vote of members present shall be recorded as an affirmative vote." That is weird. To say that just because you stepped out to use the restroom or you decided to leave early that you're in favor of whatever somebody happens to put before you. That's giving a power of attorney like nothing you've ever seen before, it doesn't have to even be for the benefit of the person giving it, it's just whoever wants to use it. So I didn't dare to take that sentence out for all purposes, because I didn't want this bill to be about that but we say that in case of re-zonings that that rule doesn't apply. The reason I say that is if we're going to go from a 3/4 vote to a majority vote, it ought to at least be a true majority because, theoretically under current law if it was a majority vote, actually one person could be in favor, two could be against, and the motion passes because two people happen to walk out. So that's part of the improvement of the bill, section 5 in the beginning parts. I urge you to vote for it and am looking forward to the debate. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] On behalf of all the members, we have two fourth grade classes we're honored to have with us, Carver Elementary School of Mount Olive and John Lawrence Elementary, Archdale, Randolph County. We're delighted to have you. [APPLAUSE] For what purpose does the gentleman from Catawba, Representative Adams, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sometimes it's helpful to hear a real world experience related to a bill, and I'll give you mine. In 1997 in Hickory, North Carolina I, together with partners, built an office building, a three-story office building just north of town. People said, "Why are you doing that, there are no other multi-story office buildings there." We said, "That's why we're doing it, because there are no office buildings there." We built it and we filled it up fairly quickly. In 1999, because of the growth that Catawba County was experiencing, I was appointed to be on a committee called Hickory By Choice, and for 30 months, for nearly three years, we worked on a land development plan that would outline how our city would grow. We came up with a quadrant plan for big box development where big box development would occur in the perimeter of our city in the four quadrants. The area across the street from my office building was specifically designated as a neighborhood core for retail development that would address the needs of the local neighborhoods, that was in 1999 through 2001. But unfortunately, in the beginning of 2000, we began to see a decline and by 2007 a developer came in and wanted to rezone the property across my office building for a big box development, specifically what we had denied in our development plan. Of course I was upset about it, but because of my relationship with my partners I did not file a protest petition, however another neighbor did. He filed a protest petition, it was going to hold up this project. For a number of months there was a big debate, lawyers were involved, and finally the protest petition was withdrawn after a six-figure check was written, high six-figure check was written. So the protest petition served to put a lot of money in one man's pocket, it delayed the project for a period of time, but it was ineffective. I'm going to support this bill. This is the right thing to do. Protest petitions are ineffective and have been misconstrued. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Alamance, Representative Ross, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, debate the bill.

HMNAYL [0:00:00.0] You have the floor to debate the bill, thank you. Another real life example, back to 10 years as a Mayor I dealt with this issue twice and I’m gonna one use one example that someone maybe to the one that you just heard that this one is a little different and I think I really it underscores the problem with the super majority vote, we had a piece of property that was located in my city, on the other side of a double sided highway, double sided highway with a median, and a developer had come in to develop this property and to what the process had determined because it went through planning and zoning, it went through the whole process, and eventually it went to the city council, it met all of the land use requirements. So it was justified in the rezoning request that came up that we had one neighbor across the highway that follow protest petition and stop the project. And here where the problem comes in, we had a five member council, we had one council member that had developed a serious illness and was out for roughly nine months with his illness. So we had a protest petition which meant that we had to have 100% of the remaining four of those on the council in order to move forward. We had to count the empty seat because he was still an active council member even though he was I don’t know at the hospital and not present. Ultimately, that member, we lost that member, he died the next year and process to replacing him went on and this whole process goes so long that ultimately the development drive up in one way, we lost it. The second time this happened when I was elected to come down here and they are trying to replace my seat and a similar answer, very similar to the one I just described. Now, I have received a lot of communication from people that have been telling me that they are loosing their ability to protest and that’s not exactly true in all of our cities where you have planning and zoning boards, these are open to the public and the purpose for these planning and zoning boards is to hear comments from the public that’s what it’s all about. And then if they don’t like what the planning and zoning boards says they don’t like the decision then they can go before the for council and in that point in time the majority of the council should be able to make a decision if they don’t like that then obviously they have an election coming up the next term around but the process of requiring a super majority when there are circumstances that come up like we had just makes it impossible and for that reason I will be supporting the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Avila arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady can send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Avila moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 6 through page 2, line 26 by re-writing those lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to explain the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, it’s often said that my freedom ends where your nose begins and I think this is a clear example of what we are talking about, we have an issue where a landowner has bought of his property and he had developed it whether it’s for business or a home, as you have heard here, and he’s been allowed to do it under certain set of zoning conditions then years later on the joining neighboring landowner comes along and wants to develop his property but he wants to rezone it because he’s got a different idea about what he like to build on his property. And 92 years ago, the elective officials in this state recognized two things—they recognized they needed to have a process where the first landowner had the right to defend the value of his property and defend it loudly, and they also recognized a common human feeling that our founding fathers recognized when they drafted our constitution and that’s the human nature that we are all born with and the conditions when we get into business, we build power basis and we build networks, and sometimes those worker gives the little, the one landowner… [0:05:00.3] [End of file…]

The two landowners, maybe at the joining property, and what I'm offering today because you're saying this is such an egregious hindrance to development is an amendment that would remove the requirement for a small percentage, five percent, to two-thirds. And moving from a super majority to a two thirds vote of the council, and I'd like to give you some statistics, because I have quite a bit of experience with this particular issue. I have been alongside constituents in my district for two years as they have defended their neighborhood from a very large retail development that is going to impact their neighborhood in very unfair and in some cases, I feel, dangerous ways, not just for their property values but also for the traffic that it's adding to their area. In defending their right to a protest petition, they did some research here in Raleigh and just to give you an idea of how terrible protest petitions are, in 2014 there were 22 rezoning requests in Raleigh, and only one of them had a valid protest petition filed. In a five year period from 2010 to 2014, out of 119 rezoning requests, 104 were approved. That's more than 87%. In Charlotte, theirs were only denied 3% of the time. I would like for you to support the amendment simply because it gives power to the people who develop their property, thinking that one use and one value would be assigned to it for their entire lifetime, but because of people coming in and things changing, they no longer have that assurance. Please support the amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker, members of the House. I'd ask you to vote no on the amendment. This bill is not about egregious hindrances for development. It's about egregious violation of the rights of property owners. I have no idea of the merits of this particular case in north Raleigh, but the question is, who decides? Is it a majority of the council or is it a small minority of the council that decides? I could give plenty of counter examples in other cities, but I'm not gonna call them out on the floor of completely irrational decisions that were made because of the protest petition. If you force me to do it, I will, but please don't. Let me give a couple of practical reasons why to defeat, vote no on this amendment. First of all, in many cases it's gonna be the same thing. Take, take a five member council, for example. What's three fourths? Four votes. What's two thirds? Four votes. So you're putting yourself in the hands of the minority of the council either way, but worst yet, Representative Avila's amendment actually strikes in lines 10 to 13, the language regarding absent members or non counted members. So in some cases it will actually be worse. A two thirds vote violates majority rights of other citizens and other property owners, the citizens being those who elected the majority of the council just as much as a three fourths vote does. It's just a different fraction. And I will note that virtually almost the same amendment was offered on the floor two years ago by Representative Meyer and was defeated on a vote of 72 to 39, and then the bill was passed 85 to 26. That doesn't mean you can't have a change of heart. I'm just reminding you of what you did two years ago. So I ask you to defeat the amendment and pass the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are there others that want to speak on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, do you want to speak on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was gonna ask Representative Stam to yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Would you yield for a question, Representative Stam? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, I was thinking of asking this whether it was the amendment or not. I do wonder just thinking about this, and, and I certainly agree with you on people being able to use

?? property for the highest value as they see fit but I do wonder about people who in a municipality buy property or improve property, relying on the zoning that is currently there and they may buy not believing that a 10 story office building could go up across the street from their house. Do you not see any need to have some protection for people to be able to rely on what the city has done in regard to zoning in the past when they invest in their property whether to purchase it or improve it? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you for the question, and yes there’s a way to get absolute reliance on what will happen and that is by buying a property right in the property next to you. Either by what’s called a negative servitude or restrictive covenant or easement or something like that . But whenever you buy on reliance on a zoning, you buy on that reliance knowing that zoning is legislative and is not guaranteed for the future. But to put this in the opposite context, I could give you horror stories for people in a city near m: Someone owns a property for 20 years and pays taxes on it for 20 years. The land use plan that has been there for a long time, calls for this property to be in this case medium density residential. The land on this side is a certain density, the land on that side is a certain density, the land on that side is a certain density. The staff reports to the planning board and the city council that yes, it completely fits within the land use plan. There’s not a deleterious effect, there’s not a traffic issue, but a neighbor files a protest petition and as a result, the rezoning which is completely unremarkable, completely legitimate, fails. And the people who have owned this property and have paid taxes on it for decades, get no significant use out of their property . Zoning is legislative if you want to control forever the property of somebody else and what they can do about it, buy an easement, buy restrictive covenant, buy a negative servitude. Don’t rely on minority rights to enforce your wishes on other people [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker [SPEAKER CHANGES] With what purposes is the gentleman from Pender represents Millicent Rise [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to speak on the amendment in light of representing the ?? comments. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time. At this time I would like to recognize on behalf of all the members Garrick elementary school in New Bern for 4th grade and New Town Elementary in Waxhaw 4th grade. Welcome, glad to have you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose could Representative Lucas please arise [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the House, we had this bill in local government committee last Thursday. And at that time I offered an amendment that was a lot more favorable to the neighbors than is the amendment offered by Representative Avila. We had a voice vote on that amendment, and it certainly seemed to most of us that it had passed. The chair is within his rights to make a call. The chair voted, made the call that the amendment failed. The point I wish to make here, first of all, is that there was bipartisan support for that amendment. The way the committee is constructed there’s no way for that voice vote to have happened as it did, and you can hear it on the committee tape if you wish . But that it was inter-party, that both parties, it was bipartisan. So we did have that in fact last time. Now what we have this time is raising the question really of whether there should be a protest petition because Representative Avila’s amendment makes two changes, really three changes to the situation. First of all it raises, drops from 3/4 to 2/3rds. Now no city council in this state is 5 members. I know Representative Ross…

Ross has talked about his situation in Burlington, but almost all the rest of them are more members than that seven or nine, and when you drop it from three quarter requirement to two third requirement, you change the situation. It is a lot easier for the protest petition to be denied by the membership of the city council. The second thing that I want to mention in this amendment which is different from the amendment that I offered and also is more favorable to the property owner and not to the protesters is the fact that the bathroom break that Representative Stam referenced or the member that Representative Ross mentioned, his councilman that was ill, both of those situations are eliminated in this amendment. In this amendment, it makes clear on page two line 12 that if you're out on a bathroom break, your vote is not considered to be a yes on the protest petition. You have to be present and voting, so the concern that Representative Stam had and that Representative Ross had are, are not there any longer, and what you're really just asking is are we allowing the protest petition to continue. And the reason it should continue is stated well in a letter from one of my constituents in Durham. She writes, when neighbors file a protest petition, it is a signal that the proposed rezoning deserves special attention by elected officials. And the examples could be something like the Sheetz which wants to come in right behind the neighborhood of $150,000 homes where people's entire equity is really in that house. All they own is in that house, and Sheetz wants to put in a 14 pump gas station. I got two Sheetz going in within two miles of my house in Durham, and they are not appreciated by the neighbors. And that's one reason why we should have the protest petition, so that the neighbors say these are special circumstances, and given these special circumstances, it is appropriate for us to protest and to require a higher vote than simply 50%. The amendment makes it 67%, two thirds, and that is quite appropriate. Let me say on the other point and why I'm actually surprised that Representative Stam opposes this amendment is that this idea of the, in the Avila amendment was proposed by Representative Bill Brawley, who cannot be here today because, as we know, because of family illness, his wife's illness. He proposed this in the committee, and I told him that I thought that deserved serious consideration, and that's what Representative Avila's amendment is. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, Representative Brawley is home. His wife is in the hospital. Would you like me to explain to the House what Representative Brawley actually thought about that amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] About the two thirds? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, I do not want to hear what he has to say right now. I do not yield. I have the floor and I want to finish my remarks. The point is, Representative Brawley came to me and said, I think it is completely reasonable if you're gonna make the vote on the city council two thirds that you increase the number of property owners who are protesting from 15%, which was in my amendment, to 67%. That's an extraordinary difference. What we are preserving here in this amendment is the right to have a protest petition is will be extremely difficult for any group of neighbors to be able to get it to two thirds. So when you vote yes on this amendment, as I urge you to do so, it's a good amendment because it allows the protesters to say to the city council, this is a special condition. The fourteen pump Sheetz , the asphalt factory, whatever it might be that the neighbors feel is really a threat to their financial investment in their house, in their home. It's a reasonable amendment, and in fact it's one that almost makes the protest petition impossible to carry out because of the high bar of 67% of the homeowners. It is nevertheless a good amendment, a fair amendment to keep the protest petition intact, and I urge support of the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen

—Representative Blust brought up a very good question, and Representative Stam had a response to that question, but I wanted also to provide from further response to Representative Blust's question, and that was—and I hope he forgives me if I paraphrase it wrong—is that if an individual has a property that is under a current zoning, is that, does not he or she preserve the right to actually have some type of say in what actually changes in regard to if a zoning was to change and, therefore, to affect the actual change of the said person's property. And Representative Stam gave a very lawyerly answer, and I'm gonna give you a little more of a simple answer. And that is, is that one thing we have to remember, is that even if the actual re-zoning is approved—and all we're debating here by way of this Bill is actually if the re-zoning is approved by fifty-one percent [51%] or if the re-zoning is approved by a supermajority. Now, I'll argue that most everything we do dealing with liberty and property rights here is 51%. But also to add further protection to Representative Blust's concerns is that if a property is re-zoned and there is a different in uses between a residential or a commercial property, or a residential in a multi-family development, the difference in uses, they actually have buffer requirements, setbacks, there's requirements for the vegetation or there the [abatements] by way of fences, how far that a building can occur from the property line. So, you as a property owner, you are further protected not only by way of the ability to actually protest in a majority fashion but also you're protected by way of the ordinances of having different uses come next to you, and to make sure that it's not visibly, or actually encroaching too much on the property that you have. So I believe the rights are definitely tilted to the private property owner by the way of who's there, existing. I have a tremendous amount of respect for Representative Avila, by all means, but I oppose this Amendment, and I most fully support this Bill. This definitely would actually— We need to get away for this aspect of the first individual there being able to control everything above and beyond the private property rights to those who have purchased the next door property. The individual who has paid for that piece of property [adds an] increased value to it, and that individual should have just as must rights as the first individual who've paid for the property that they live on, but did not pay for the property that the other individual resides on. So, out of— With all due respect to Representative Avila, I would ask that you oppose this Amendment, and fully support the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose would the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Jeter, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Jeter] To debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Chairman] You have the floor to debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Jeter] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I'm opposed to the Amendment, but perhaps for a different, unique way. If the Amendment passes, under the 6767 Apples to Apples Rule, seems logical to me. I don't have a problem with that. However, it does not take into factor what I think the second biggest problem with the protest petition is. Which I saw a lot on City Council in Huntersville. Where someone would file a protest petition, and then they'd get a new fence, and their protest petition would go away. So, for me, this doesn't take away the incentive to file protest petitions from bad actors. Let me be clear: I'm not suggesting that everyone who files a protest position is a bad actor. But I'm saying in my tenure on City Council, designing— doing zoning issues, we saw it more often than you would think. So, unless there's a provision that says once you file a protest petition you can't receive anything of tangible value in order to withdraw, then even with this Amendment passing, you've created a bad situation. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Orange, Representative Meyer, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Meyer] To debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Chairman] You have the floor to debate the Amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Meyer] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. When Representative Stam repeated his story for us today about his treehouse, which he also used in last year's debate, it reminded me of when I was six years old. My parents had bought a house in 1974, in a working class neighborhood in Cleveland, Ohio. They paid fifteen thousand dollars [$15,000] for that house. It was all the money they had, of course, they were trying to live up to the American dream. Well, when I was six years old, a McDonalds was built directly behind my house. And I thought, then, that we had really found the American dream! [laughter] I remember falling asleep at night with the windows open in those days before air conditioning, with the gentle sounds of "Grbxlmcrff! Gxrbmlmrcff! Welcome to McDonalds, can I take your order please?" [laughter]

But I realized it wasn’t all that much fun when my mom’s favorite chore for me on the days when I had not been such a good boy was to have me go out and cleanup all the trash that was thrown over the fence from McDonalds into our backyard. My mom might have been a bad actor in making her son go and clean up the trash, but I think the real issue for my mom, and my dad and the other neighbors in that neighborhood was when McDonalds decides that they want to build in your backyard, they’ve got lawyers, and architects and engineers who’ve been working on that plan for a year. And we’ll bring this into current times, in NC, most cities that have zoning statutes, their statutes are about a thousand pages long, some even longer. And when a neighborhood says we don’t want McDonalds and they’re trashing our backyard, a neighborhood like the one I grew up in, we didn’t have engineers or lawyers to help us figure out what was in those zoning regulations and how we should fight back. And even more of a problem is most zoning regulations only give the neighbors 10 days, 10 day warning, guaranteed warning to express your objections. And after McDonalds has been preparing for a year, to expect my parents and the other full time blue collar working class parents around them to figure out how to protest to the city council within 10 days, they weren’t gonna be able to do it. And I think that’s the case with many neighborhoods there now. So this is just tipping the scales a little bit, and we have laws that protect the majority. And we also have laws that protect the individual. And this is one of those laws that protects the individual. Does it sometimes make things a little more difficult for the majority? Yes. Does it sometimes make things more difficult for developers? Yes. Are there some unfortunate side consequences like maybe my mom could have had McDonalds build a higher fence? Yes. But given the tradeoffs between individuals and corporations, this is one thing that’s worth keeping. I will support this amendment as a compromise. I wish the threshold wasn’t as high as two-thirds. I’d rather see the amendment that we debated last year with lower thresholds, but we need something for those people who don’t want McDonalds trash in their backyard and I support this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Rep. Meyer a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield for question, Rep. Meyer? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Meyer, I definitely appreciate your story in all honestly, I just wanted to see in the story that you actually articulated, in the difference of Rep. Stam, the ability for a rezoning to occur and for a McDonalds to be built behind your house, what part of that rezoning allowed McDonalds to actually litter, what part of that rezoning actually gave them the ability to break laws about refuse on your property? I’m just a little bit confused about how a rezoning has anything to do with breaking the law and allowing somebody else’s trash to be on your property? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The issue is what type of environment do you want to live in and what do you want in your back yard. That’s the issue. It’s not necessarily about the McDonalds trash. It could be about whatever’s coming into your backyard. But on the other side of my neighborhood were stockyards. They smelled horrible. I wouldn’t want those built to my house either. This is a piece of regulation. The protest petition, right to protest petition is a piece of regulation that protects the property rights of previous investors. And if we get rid of these, we undermine part of the regulatory environment that gives people certainty that if I invest my money there, whether I’m a homeowner, or a business owner or a property developer, if I invest my money there, I can expect that my investment will maintain its value because what’s around me I can relatively expect to stay the way that I thought it would be based on the current zoning at the time. We need that for all kinds of investment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Rep. Harrison arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It’s difficult to follow that very articulately stated support for Rep. Avila’s amendment. I’m standing up in support of it as well. I know this body has sat through hours of debate about repealing the protest petition over the past three years. So I don’t want to repeat too much of what I’ve said in the past, but this is a personal issue for those of us in Greensboro. We had not had the protest petition.

MQUFMY [0:00:00.0] For about 30 years until we restored it back in 2010 I believe and it’s been an important tool for the neighbors and neighborhoods in Greensboro, there have been several proposals to reason some parts of a major ?? from residential to commercial and it’s because of the protest petition that the neighbors of those proposed property changes have the ability to sort down and negotiate with the developer, I don’t think it’s any secret that boards of zoning and adjustment and many city councils are dominated by development interest and I think this just tips the stay on favor of the property owners that are affected by these rezoning changes. So my preference would be not to repeal it but I believe that Representative Avila’s threshold is way too high that I think it’s a nice compromise and I wish that this body just have a study committee and say if we can come up with the state for a recommendation that we could all agree to but in absence of that I would like to urge you to support Representative Avila’s amendment, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond, Representative Goodman arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] First to ask Representative Stam a question and then to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, is it possible for one person to have the two-thirds protest petition? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Alright, thank you. Just listening to all this debate and by the way one other point the City Council in Rockingham does have five members so they are city councils with only five members but to get to my main point, this two-third thing sounds really good I mean if you look at the Congress of the United States, they pass a bill and then President vetoes it and with two-thirds vote they can override the President’s veto but the interesting thing there is that the President is given this veto power because he’s elected by all the people of the United States and it is a safeguard but under a protest petition we are given one person in lot of cases veto power over the elected officials in a city and to me that just seems unbalanced and city councils are given the power to rezone and they generally try to way the interest of home owners and property owners against the interest of the community as a whole and I think generally they make those decisions appropriately. Now, if we pass this bill today, there will be cases where a protest position may have been appropriate but in the vast majority of cases overwhelmingly it will eliminate the opportunity to abuse something and for one person to be able to hold the gun at the head of a developer and stop something that will benefit a community. So for that reason I’m gonna vote against the amendment and vote for the bill, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Avila arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak second time on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to speak second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I guess probably to help illustrate why I feel I do about this and why I interpreted the way I do, I have to use my personal experience like a lot of you and you will have. It involves subdivision on ?? Road, one of the largest, busiest North-West quarters in Wake County, there is one major entrance to the subdivision and inside that main entrance on the right is a small portion of land where a proposal was made for 50,000 square foot grocery store, one main light entrance into a subdivision of thousands of homes, it will share the sight with a day care center and at that point 6,000 additional cars a day into that neighborhood. It will bring in anywhere between 15 and 18 transfer trucks a day to a store of that size. Through the protest petition they have negotiated and worked and begged and pleaded to be able to scale it down, they have now decided they can go to 29,000 square foot organic grocery store which will only mean 5,000 cars additional rather than 6,000 under the original. These are the sorts of egregious types of subdivisions like the?? developments that we have the protest petition for. Representative Stam’s illustration of the family who own the property and they fell within the room of the comprehensive… [0:04:59.0] [End of file…]

VLBWIF [0:00:00.0] …Plan and that’s not a follow up protest petition or one person handling it and holding it up that was the fault of the city council not standing behind what they said fall within their parameters. And as far as Representative Melesis think about buffers sure there maybe buffers around the back of it, back of somebody’s yard but what about the transfer trucks that are gonna be turning in with the parents and the pick up their kids at that day care. Ladies and gentlemen we have to give people who are defending their property, the right to have a voice of these types and only these types are very agree this development take place, please for your constituents you got the emails you know please support the amendment, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stam, short. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Short. Who decides in the case mentioned a majority of the Cary City Council was perfectly willing to follow the plan and grant the rezoning but because of the protest petition a small minority of the council was able to block it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the amendment? If not, all those in favor of the amendment will vote aye, all oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 64 voting in the negative, 40 in the affirmative, the amendment fails. Now, we are back on the bill. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Jackson arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I should begin by noting that the request for this bill did not come from any of my local municipalities and so they have taken no position and I don’t want anybody to infer that I speak today in favor of this bill because of that instead I speak today in favor of this bill because of my beliefs, my personal beliefs in democracy and think requiring 75% of a board, a legislative board to approve a rezoning is just unfair and anti-democratic. I want you to picture in your mind what this body would look like with a 75% threshold vote. As 90 members, we would get nothing done, nothing; we would be worst than the U.S Senate, if we had to get 90 votes on everything. So either trust your local officials or you don’t these are the people on the ground, these are the people who run city wide and now I will use Raleigh as an example only because I’m most familiar with it, there are eight members of the council to get the vote on every issue, two ?? so every person in the city gets to vote for those. The Mayor ??, everybody gets to vote for her then they had their individual member. So every subdivision already votes for 50% of the town council, the city council. So their rights are already protected and if the City Council is not doing what they should be doing and not working for the best interest of everyone then they can be voted out the next election. Since Representative Stam didn’t refer to the?? McCord, I will go back and do, I will do a little bit of history for you, there is a debate I know many of you are constitutional scholars and do a lot of reading on it but there is and I mean it and all sincerity, I know from what people have things that used on the floor and everything, they do a lot of constitutional reading, there is a debate between Jefferson and Hamilton and usually honestly I fall on the Jefferson side on most issues but Alexander Hamilton had a right in Federal Assembly 5 when he said, “Our provisions would require more than a majority of anybody to its resolutions had the direct tendency to embrace the operations of the government and an indirect one to subject the majority to that a minority.” I don’t think I could say it any better, I just ask when you think about this bill when you vote, ask yourself we would be like 90 vote threshold. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Lucas arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker I sat very attentively and listen to the debate and it’s been quite interesting. [0:05:00.3] [End of file…]

But as I've listened to this debate, I've decided that I ought to support this bill. The rationale goes like this: I think we've been discussing encroachment from one perspective, and that is from a majority of citizens opposing a supposing minority of citizens, and sometimes the inverse proportions get lost. I'll cite you an example of why I feel that we ought to support the bill. Imagine a small landowner, say three to five acres of property, who's owned it for a number of years, and has decided that, well, I don't want urbanity to encroach upon me. Cities have encroached upon small landowners that way over a period of years. And as they've encroached, subdivisions have been developed. I don't know if they consider that little five or three-to-five acre plot of property or not. But they develop all around it. And then whenever this gentleman who's owned it, who superseded them, decides that, well, I have an opportunity for my family here, and perhaps we ought to take advantage of it. And he complies with all the areas of zoning, and then there's a group who gets together who actually came after he did, and decides that they want to control what goes there on his property. I think we ought to consider that aspect of the debate. Sometimes we just look at one side of it and we don't favor the other side. I wish--perhaps if he had had some say-so in that urbanity development, or even being annexed into the city. ?? he probably said you guys, stay where you are, I'd like to leave this property as it is. But we know that as cities grow, conditions change. And as they change, we ought to be cognizant of that little small plot owner. And so I support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Martin, arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. Members, I rise in opposition to this bill, and I want to address a few of the points that have been quite eloquently made in favor of it. I'm going to resist the temptation that asks my colleague from Wake County, though, if the tree in his back yard was in fact the tree under which the Magna Carta was signed back in the 13th century. And I'll also resist, even in light of the debate in committee this morning, to see if that tree was that tree, if it could be designated historic. We'll save that for a later day. Supporters of this bill have argued that the protest petition is somehow antidemocratic. And it seems to me as they were making their arguments, and I won't rehash them, but in the end, if a protest petition, by requiring a super-majority is antidemocratic, then our U.S. Constitution is antidemocratic, then our state constitution is antidemocratic, then some of our procedures here are also antidemocratic. Everything a legislative body or group or municipal government does should not be subject to a supermajority. Absolutely not. Certain things should be, where there is good reason to be, and I think in the case of a protest petition, there certainly is. Let me also address my other friend from Wake County, Representative Jackson's argument, that if we required supermajorities nothing would get done. We have a protest petition procedure in Wake County and in Raleigh, where my district is. We are one of the fastest-growing cities in the entire country. Clearly, we are getting things done with protest petitions in the city of Raleigh and in the county of Wake. We've heard some folks talk about horror stories on both sides of this issue. I think it's safe to say that without a doubt, there are neighbors out there who have gotten their unreasonable demands met on developers as a result of the power they have with a protest petition. I absolutely agree to that. I practiced commercial real estate for several years and in fact saw that happen. I think it's also safe to say that on the other side, there's no shortage of horror stories of neighborhoods who have really almost been destroyed by the city council in the end allowing a development to occur. Where the balance lies, horror stories on either side, I can't say for sure, I don't have statistics on that. But I can tell you that in my experience, where in the end most protest petitions result. Where they're filed, usually what happens is that it brings a developer and a neighborhood to the table. The neighborhood says what they'd like to see, the developer gives their pitch, and in the end

[SPEAKER CHANGES] And some compromises made. It's probably some burden on the developer, but also it's just as likely that the neighborhood is making concessions too. So in the end what I've seen happen more often than not in protest petitions is that the development moves forward, the developer makes money, the neighborhood makes some concessions. But in the end the growth occurs, the development moves forward. That's what's happening in Wake County with protest petitions. I think it's premature to throw it out arbitrarily like this. This is the sort of thing I think would be better subject to a study bill, give it a good look. I'm not set on the numbers, I don't know if the numbers in Representative Avila's amendment are the right one. I don't know if the numbers in current law are the right numbers. I've got an open mind about where the threshold should be. But one thing I do know is the neighborhoods in my district have spoken with one voice and said that they view the protest petition as a way of giving them a voice in helping Wake County and Raleigh continue to get things done. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Alexander arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I have been sitting here and reviewing in my mind a concept called majority rule, minority rights. We've talked a lot about democracy and supermajorities, but it seems to me that one thing that's been missing from this discussion is the rights of the minority. I came to the General Assembly direct from a stint on the Mecklenburg County Planning Commission. And, so I saw this whole thing kind of operate from a different perspective. I saw developers who had wonderful plans to do things propose developments that neighborhoods felt might be not in their best interest. Sometimes it was based on traffic, sometimes it was based upon the height of a building that would be immediately adjacent to somebody's backyard. Sometimes it was based upon the fear of the development and whether or not it was going to generate more trash, or you know, just a lot of things that could have bothered folk. Sometimes it was something as simple as the design of homes in a neighborhood as opposed to what they feared would be the design of the new project. Nine out of ten times though, what happened was because there was this threat out there of a possible protest petition. The neighborhood leaders and the developers were brought to the table to discuss before a city council meeting, before anything got as formal as-some folk seem to fear everything moves to, the ability to do exactly what I've seen us do here in the General Assembly, which is to have stakeholders come together and discuss a proposal and come to some meeting of the minds. I think they call that compromise, where something can move forward and everybody can agree to it. The same thing with projects. By having neighborhood people and having the developers be able to talk to each other, probably nobody was 100% satisfied, but at least some things happened to get good project to move forward. And I do admit that my experience with this has been more positive than negative, and you'll hear me using constantly the term neighbors and neighborhoods. The actors that I've seen haven't been extortionists, they have been people who have had genuine concerns about the quality of life that they were going to experience after a project, and were looking to try to do something about it. Sometimes they wanted to stop it. Most of the time that didn't happen, most of the time what happened was a compromise.

A realization on the part of the developer that they had to accommodate the neighborhoods, and a realization on the part of the neighborhoods that progress couldn't be stopped. You could slow it down, but you can't stop it. Now, I've been surrounded by the eloquence of members of the legal profession, and as a simple urban undertaker, I can't attempt to be as eloquent as you learned gentlemen, but I can tell you that in reading my emails, I have yet to see anybody from my neck of the woods tell me that the protest petition is something that needs to disappear. And because of that, I have problems supporting the bill as it is currently presented. I've got to go back to my branch of the crick and deal with, with my folk, and my folk are just not in favor of losing their minority rights. My professor back at the university was a fellow named Protho who at that time was one of the leading political scientists in the country. In fact, he had written a book with a guy named Irish, and Irish and Protho used to be the textbook that was used to teach political science, and after class I used to enjoy sitting around and talking to him, and he kept drilling in that majority rule, minority rights issue. Well, don't forget it when it comes time to vote, because at some point, you're gonna be sitting in that minority position too. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from New Hanover, Representative Hamilton rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. I probably have the sole honor here in this room of having been a city planner in my early career for several years, and have actually participated on the staff side of reviewing a protest petition and working with the project through the process of a rezoning or a special use permit while the protest petition was active. Every action that a city council takes, whether it be legislative or quasi judicial requires the public hearing. So by eliminating the protest petition, we are not eliminating the voice of the public in this decision making process, but we are however, giving a super majority voice to unelected officials. And as has been stated more eloquently by others earlier in the day, I don't agree with a super majority set up for our local city councils when dealing with future development within their city limits. So for that reason I will be supporting this bill, and I would encourage others to think about that. We are not taking away citizens' rights. We are not taking away citizens' votes or their voice, but we are protecting landowners that are adjacent to existing developments. We are protecting their property rights. So with that in mind, I would ask for your support for this, this bill. I think it's long overdue, and I submit that to you. Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't see anything in here that removes the protest petition, so I think there's some misunderstanding here. All it's gonna do is remove the super majority and it's gonna keep that phantom vote from appearing. And I would recommend, to me this is common sense. To me, again, this is a liberty issue. Everybody has their say, but the private property owner gets his day in court. With a super majority, it usually never comes. So I ask everybody, please, vote for this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Orange, Representative Meyer arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would simply remind the body that if a minority of

LCIIGP [0:00:00.0] Members on any council hold up a development then a majority of citizens have the right to vote them out of office the next time if they don’t like what those members did. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute to House Bill 201 on its second reading, so many favoring passage of the bill will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 81 having voted in the affirmative and 31 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for House Bill 201 passes its second reading and will without objection… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Objection having been stated the bill will go to the March calendar for third reading. Representatives Blust and Jordan are recognized to send forward a committee report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Blust and Jordan, judiciary two committee report to House Bill 242: White Collar Investigation. Favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The original bill is placed on the unfavorable calendar, Committee Substitute calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 294: Prohibit Cell Phone/Delinquent Juvenile.-AB [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute calendar, original bill unfavorable calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 295: Juvenile Media Release.-AB, favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable original. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute calendar, original bill unfavorable calendar. Representatives Brown and Holloway are recognized to send forward the committee report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Brown and Holloway, education university committee report. House Bill 72: SOG Pilot Project Standards, favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable original and re-refer to appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Original bill unfavorable calendar, Committee Substitute is re-refer to the committee on appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 129: High Achieving Tuition Scholarships. Favorable Committee Substitute #2, unfavorable original #1 and re-refer to appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Original bill unfavorable calendar, Committee Substitute is re-refer to the committee on appropriations. Representatives Bumgardener and Setzer are recognized to send forward the committee report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Bumgardener and Setzer, the insurance committee report, House Bill 16: Repeal outdated reports.-AB, favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Original bill unfavorable calendar, Committee Substitute calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 151: Property Insurance Ratemaking Reform, favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Original bill unfavorable calendar, Committee Substitute calendar. Representatives Iler, Shepard, and Torbett are recognized to send forward the committee report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Iler, Shepard, and Torbett, transportation committee report, House Bill 183: Repeal Map Act, favorable and re-referred to finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The bill is re-referred to the committee on finance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 148: Insurance and Safety Inspection/Mopeds. Favorable Committee Substitute, unfavorable original bill and re-referred to insurance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee Substitute is re-referred to the committee on insurance. The original bill is placed on the unfavorable calendar. House Bill 211, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representatives Stevens, Bryan, Floyd, and D. Hall, House Bill 211: A bill to be entitled an act to expand the authorized uses of grant funds provided to the conference of district attorneys. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house this is a recommendation from the Courts Commission and I’m gonna first tell you what it does not do, it does not cost us anything, we set aside $500,000 in the previous budget to the conference to DAs to allow them to use local hospitals to help with some of the lab backlog. A lot of the local hospitals didn’t necessarily wanna do it so they have said, “Can we also use this…” [0:05:00.3] [End of file…]

—money for private labs, and can we expand to forensic DNA. And that's all it does, is allow them to take the money we've already given them, and expand the use to try to deal with the state crime lab backlog. And I'll welcome any questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the gentleman from Lake, Representative Hall, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative D. Hall] Mr. Speaker, to send forth a very short amendment that I believe is on the dashboard. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment. The clerk will read the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Clerk] Representative D. Hall moves to amend the Bill on page one [1], line ten [10], by inserting 'in state' between the words 'private' and 'laboratories.' The gentleman from Lake has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative D. Hall] Members, I'm a primary of this Bill as well, so it's obviously a friendly amendment— something that we, inadvertently, missed when we sent this in the Courts Commission— and all of the primary and the Conference of DA's are onboard is that if we're gonna outsource the blood and drug tests? We need to make sure we use in state laboratories. And the reason is obvious. If a toxicologist has to testify, we don't want him coming from out of state to have to do that. So what this amendment does is it simply adds the words 'in state' between the words 'private' and 'laboratories' so that line 10 reads: 'private in state laboratories.' I hope you'll support the amendment and the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Stevens] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative Stevens] And he's— the Representative is exactly right. It is— it was a mistake to be left out. We do need to make sure to cut down on travel costs that we use an in state lab. Thank you, and I support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Further discussion, further debate on the amendment? [pause] If not— Question for the House is the adoption of Amendment 1, sent forth by Representative Hall, to House Bill 211. So many favoring the adoption will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [long pause] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and eleven [111] having voted in the affirmative, and none in the negative, the amendment is adopted. We are now back on the Bill. Further discussion, further debate on the Bill as amended. If not—the question for the House is the adoption of House Bill 211 on its second reading. So many favoring adoption of the Bill will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [long pause] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and eleven [111] having voted in the affirmative, and none in the negative, House Bill 211 passes its second reading and will, without objection, be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Clerk] General Senate of North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Further discussion, further debate? If not— the que— oh! [SPEAKER CHANGES to gentleman from Cumberland] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman from Cumberland is recognized. Ah— for what purpose does the gentleman rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to gentleman from Cumberland] A visual problem, Mr. Speaker. And a ?? problem. May I vote on that? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Gentleman, do you wish to be recorded as having voted aye on that last vote? [SPEAKER CHANGES to gentleman from Cumberland] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman from Cumberland will be recorded as having voted aye. Does the gentleman from Robinson wish to challenge his vote? [SPEAKER CHANGES to gentleman from Robinson] Yes I— I will do that. Thank you. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman will also be recorded as having voted aye. All right. On third reading, further discussion, further debate on the Bill, on third reading? If not, the question before the House is the adoption of House Bill 211 on its third reading. So many in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES to All Present] Aye! [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] Those opposed will say no. [silence] The ayes have it. House Bill 211 passes third reading and will be sent to the Senate. And the amendment is ordered engrossed. Notices and announcements. For what purpose does the gentleman from Randolph, Representative McNeill, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative McNeill] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Speaker] The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES to Representative McNeill] I'd like to announce to everybody— I want to make sure that you saw your email yesterday. There was an email sent out notifying each and every one of you that the process for the Community College Board has started. You have, beginning yesterday, one week to put your nominations in. Those nominations would go to the Principle Clerk's office. Please look in your email. If you happened to miss it yesterday, the form that you need to fill out to nominate someone is in your email, plus a memo explaining to you the process of how the House and the Senate will be conducting these elections. If you've got any questions, feels free to ask me or Representative Brody on this. Thank you.

For what purpose does the lady from Randolph, Representative Hurley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Justice of Public Safety will meet in the morning at 8:30 in Room 415. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Dare, Representative Tine, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Just a reminder that tomorrow night is the premier event that we always enjoy up here, where Dare County and Brunswick and Carteret all come up and bring seafood for us to enjoy and remember what the Seafood Industry is all about. So, it's tomorrow at 5:30 to 7:30 at the Mills Construction Company, look forward to seeing you all there. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Tonight you have the opportunity to accept the invitation of the North Carolina Museum of Art and the North Carolina Symphony at a reception from 6:00 to 8:00 at the North Carolina Museum of Art out on Blueridge Road. They will probably have some excellent food there and hor dourves, and some musical performances by a number of the vary talented people with the North Carolina Symphony. So it's normally, annually, a very excellent event and I would encourage your attendance this evening. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Union, Representative Arp, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Public Utility is scheduled to meet tomorrow at 1:00. We've added the House Bill 265, the Encampe Asset bill to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Faircloth, rise? For what purpose does the gentleman from Wayne, Representative Bell, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For a personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized to speak to a moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, last year in this chamber we did a resolution on the floor, and part of that resolution was to honor a lot of the success a local TV show in Kinston, North Carolina has had, is Chef's Life. Maybe you've had a change to meet Chef Vivian Cruz, some of you had a chance to sample some of the delicious treats they serve down in Kinston numerous times, and I'm very proud to stand here today, and last year we talked about them being a James Beard nominee, and just as of today they have been nominated for three James Beard Awards. So, join me congratulating all the good folks at Chef's Life and to its success, and taking North Carolina agriculture to a whole other level. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland, Representative Pierce, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES][SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement, please, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Members of the Black Caucus we have a meeting at 5:00 in Room 1425, please stop by for that meeting please. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the lady from Iredell, Representative Turner, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The lady has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'd like to call your attention to the Aging Committee/Young at Heart Committee will be meeting tomorrow. We'll be hearing one bill, it's at 11 o'clock in 423. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. All the Republicans, look in you inbox for an off site caucus this afternoon. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]For an announcement, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman has the floor for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Democrats will meet off site, tomorrow afternoon, after session. Please watch you emails for it. We will meet off site tomorrow afternoon after session, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg, Representative Byan, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, I'd like to change my vote on House Bill 201, Amendment 1, from no to yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman will be recorded as having voted aye on the, is it one amendment, Madame Clerk? On the amendment to House Bill 201. Further notices and announcements? If not, the gentleman from Gaston, Representative Torbett is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn subject to committee reports, referral of bills and resolutions, to reconvene Wednesday, March 25th at 2:00 PM. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Torbett moves, seconded by Representative Langdon, that the house adjourn subject to committee reports and referral of bills and resolutions, to reconvene Wednesday, March 25th at, at 3 o'clock, 3 o'clock PM. Three, yes. Those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Those opposed, no, the ayes have it, we stand adjourned.