Speaker: The house will come to order. Members please take your seats. Visitors please retire from the chamber. Members and visitors please silence all electronic devices. Prayer will be offered by Representative, Justin Burr. Members and visitors in the gallery please stand and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Burr: Please join me in prayer. Dear Lord, we thank you for this opportunity to gather here one more day. We pray these members continue to arrive, and as we go home today after finishing our business, that you will help us travel safely. We pray that you’ll be with us and guide us through the decisions that we have to make today Lord. We pray that you’ll be with all of our leaders as difficult decisions are made in this country, in this state, and in our communities. That you will be with us and guide us and love and support us Lord. In Christ’s name, we pray. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speaker: Amen. We 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 CHANGE] Speaker: Representative Morris, recognize. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Morris: Mr. Speaker, the journal for July 26, 2013 has been examined and found to be correct, and I move its approval as written. Speaker: Representative Morris moves that the journal of July 26 be approved as written. All in favor say “aye.” [Pause] All opposed “no.” [Pause] The ayes have it; the journal is approved as written. Petition memorials or papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House. [??]McCrory. [SPEAKER CHANGE] [??]McCrory: The state of North Carolina Pat McCrory, Governor by proclamation, of reconvening session. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Governor by Article 3 Section 5( 11) of the Constitution of North Carolina. As required by Article 2 Section 22(7), the General Assembly shall reconvene on Tuesday, Sept 3, 2013 at 12:00 pm to reconsider HB 786, an act to require the Department of Public Safety to study measures for addressing the problem of illegal immigration in this state and to clarify which employers are subject to the state’s E-verify laws. House Bill 392, an act requiring a County Department of Social Services (DSS) to verify whether an applicant or a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families ( TANF) benefits or Food and Nutrition (FNS ) benefits is a fleeing felon or a probation or parole violator. To direct inter-agency cooperation and information sharing in order to verify the eligibility status of an applicant or recipient. To deny TANF or FNS benefits to an applicant or recipient who is fleeing felon, probation or parole violator. To require drug screening and testing for certain applicants and recipients of Work First Program assistance, which were vetoed on Aug 15, 2013. Done in Raleigh, NC. Aug 22, 2013. Pat McCrory, Governor. [SPEAKER CHANGE} Speaker : Chair directs a message sent to the Senate, with the information that the House is ready to proceed with public business. Messages from the Senate, [??]McCrory. [SPEAKER CHANGE] [??]McCrory: Special message from the Senate [xx]ink is already [xx]sent to the House of Representatives form the honorable body of the pursuant proclamation issued by Governor Pat McCrory on Aug 22, 2013 reconvening the 2013 session General Assembly to reconsider House Bill 786 and HB 392 which were vetoed on Aug 15, 2013. The Senate is organized and ready to proceed with public business. Respectfully, Sarah Lang, Principal Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speaker: Noted. Ladies and gentlemen, the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to a class of law students from North Carolina Central. I believe they are to my left. Please stand and let us welcome you. [Applause] Messages from the Governor [??]McCrory. [SPEAKER CHANGE] [??]McCrory: State of North Carolina Governor’s objection s and veto message HB 392, an act requiring a County Department of Social Services to verify whether an applicant or a recipient of Temporary Assistance for Needy Families benefits. It is critical that public benefits be protected from abuses by felons and those fleeing prosecution. The criminal background requirements make sense in House Bill 392. Thereby, under my existing executive authority, I’m directing the Department of Health and Human Services in our state Chief Information Officer to develop a plan and recommendations to assure the fugitive felons and probation-
While parole violators do not receive those public benefits. This administration believes that there are better ways to fight addiction and prevent criminal drug abuse. However, this is not the best way forward and I must veto this bill because of my concerns about the implementation of the drug testing provisions which were not thoroughly analyzed prior to passing the legislation. Additional veto reasons include the changes that would be required are not funded in this bill or in the 2013/2015 budget. The bill is a step backwards for DHHS and it's efforts to assist people in combating substance abuse. The department currently screens all adult applicants for substance abuse issues and, as appropriate, facilitates the treatment plan which the applicant must comply prior to receiving benefits. I'm concerned that the means for establishing reasonable suspicion, as outlined in the bill, are not sufficient to mandate a drug test under the fourth amendment. The punitive mandates of this bill go too far in restricting future access to benefits that could have a negative impact on children and families. Similar efforts in other states have proven costly for tax payers and did little to help fight drug addiction. There are potential obstacles to consistent application across 100 counties. I continue to recommend further study on this issue, Pat McCrory, governor of the state of North Carolina. Calendar, governors objections and veto message, HB 786, an act to require the department of public safety to study measures for addressing the problem of illegal immigration in this state and to clarify which employers are subject to the state's E-verify laws. I am vetoing HB 786 because I promised to protect and find jobs for North Carolinians. This bill has been thinly disguised as a measure to help our farming community, when in fact it applies to a broad spectrum of other businesses in both urban and rural areas. There's a loophole that would allow businesses to exempt a higher percentage of employees from proving that they are legal U.S. citizens or residents. This legislation increases the seasonal employee 90 day exemption to nearly nine months in a calendar year and will put our legal residents at a disadvantage in the job market. We must do everything we can to help protect jobs for North Carolinians first and foremost. This legislation needs further study as I recommended months ago, however the bill did not provide funding for a study. North Carolina has the fifth highest unemployment in the country and now is not the time to put our citizens at a disadvantage to find jobs. I have remained focused on job growth in North Carolina and I will continue to do so in the future. Therefore, I veto the bill. Pat McCrory, governor of the state of North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar, ladies and gentlemen before we go in to recess until 4:30 the chair will have notices, recognized notices and announcements and any other members for any other purpose and order. Representative ?? please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen's recognized for an announcement [SPEAKER CHANGES] The republicans will call cassette 3:00 in room 544. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notices and announcements? Representative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentlemen is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, democrats will call cassette 1:00 PM off-site today and then at 3:00 PM in our caucus room before we come back in session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Futher notices and announcements. If not the House be in recess until 4:30 PM. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come to order. Calendar, HB 392 the ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] HB 392, an act requiring county department social services to verify whether an applicant for recipient of county benefits or food and nutrition services FNS benefits is a fleeing felon or a probation or parole violator to direct the inter-agency cooperation information chain in order to verify the eligibility status of an applicant or recipient to deny county for FNS benefits to an applicant or a recipient who is a fleeing felon or probation or parole violator and to require drug screening and testing for certain applicants and recipients-
Work First program assistance. [Speaker Changes] Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] For a motion. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized for motion. [Speaker Changes] Mr. Speaker, I put forth a motion to pass HB 392 notwithstanding the objection of the governor. [Speaker Changes] A motion is before us. Gentleman is recognized to make the motion. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentlemen of the assembly, this was a bill that -- nothing has changed. It requires that we verify the background information regarding TANF and food stamp applicants. There's nothing changed. It's passed by a large majority in the House and I encourage your vote. [Speaker Changes] Representative Fulghum, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized to make the motion. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentlemen, in April this House approved H392 to deny Work First and nutritional assistance to fleeing felons and parole and probation violators. On August 14th Governor McCrory issued Executive Order #21 directing the Department of Health and Human Services to implement the provisions of that version of H392. The conference version of H392 before us today was ratified in July with new language from the Senate repealing existing law dealing with Work First applicants and substance abuse. Work First is a program that's been around since 1994, initially with benefits for 129,000 North Carolina families. In 2012 and 13 -- 21,000 families were enrolled with 34,000 children and 6,600 adults. The goal of Work First is to move families below 200 percent of poverty to self sufficiency. The Department of Social Services in 100 North Carolina counties assist needy families so that children can be cared for in their own homes or homes of relatives. They seek to reduce the ?? of needy parents by providing job preparedness, work, and marriage to prevent or reduce the incidence of out of wedlock pregnancies to encourage the formation of two parent families to keep families off welfare by making work mandatory as a condition of benefits with a two year limit and to help keep parents employed by assisting with childcare and transportation. Substance abuse involving alcohol and drugs often ruin any chance of these stressed families to move up from the punishing depths of poverty. The current Work First program is administered in all 100 North Carolina counties -- requires all applicants to be screened by qualified substance abuse professionals for signs of alcohol or drug abuse. A mutual responsibility agreement will require if indicated participation in a substance abuse treatment program. Compliance with the program and any subsequent drug testing are conditions to receive Work First benefit and is a part of the benefit package. Over two-thirds of the adult US population consume alcohol on a regular basis. Over 18 million US adults are considered alcohol abusers. A similar number use illegal drugs -- at least 30 to 50 percent are considered abusers. If an applicant or recipient of Work First cannot comply with the substance abuse program it is currently configured. The offending adult will lose benefits, but the family's children do not. And by the way, 70 percent of the beneficiaries in this program are our children. The practical result is for example a family of one parent and one child is receiving its own average at $236 per month. They would lose only the parents -- $36 per month share for a failed drug test. The new Work First drug screening law as proposed eliminates the substance abuse testing and treatment protocol. Based on reasonable suspicion standards, an additional drug test would be required of the applicant for Work First benefits for quote, "Illegal use of controlled substances". If the test is positive the applicant would be ineligible for benefits for one year. An applicant may...
reapply in thirty days, but is eligible for benefits only after successful completion of a substance abuse treatment program and a negative drug test, with all costs related to the treatment and testing going by the applicant. If tested positive again, no reapplication is possible for three years. Why do I object to this version of 392? What's the problem this new law seeks to remedy? Does the current program fail to discover alcohol and drug abuse, which would cause tax payers to support a drug habit, or keep the work force program from achieving its goals? To the contrary, this new law proposed seeks only to discover use, not abuse, and fails to include the most commonly abused substance, alcohol, in its language. An already distressed family, in poverty, now also must shoulder the additional cost of treatment and testing if they hope to qualify for benefits, should the initial drug test come back positive. And to the drug test, exactly what, quote, controlled substances are subject to illegal use? In the North Carolina Control Substance Act, 336 drugs are listed by name, and subject to abuse and illegal use. Do we discard a substance abuse program now appropriately administered in all 100 counties in this bad bill, which is so poorly written it fails to specify which of the 336 controlled substances it seeks to uncover. And also fails to disclose WHAT costs are to be incurred by the absence of a physical note. By these actions, it indulges in micro-management and disregards the judgement of the fine social work professionals in all 100 North Carolina counties. Is there evidence the current program is not working, and will the suggested replacement actually help the applicant hold down a job and support the family,or is this really a punitive measure? Which brings me to my final objection. In my opinion, these new provisions meets the definition of kicking a man while he is down. It also brings to mind the message of Paul, found in Galatians 6:2. "Bear one another's burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ." I support the Governor's veto of HP392, and respectfully ask you to join me in voting no on override. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and uh fellow House members. I think, uh, Dr. Foljam probably said it correct, that, uh, this is kicking folks when they're down. This is a measure that should never have been passed. One that, uh, the Governor's staff, and researchers have looked at and determined several things in his letter explaining his veto. And I would support his veto and would vote red on this motion to override his veto. Now, we can come back and pass a bill in a short session or in the next long session, and get it right, but the many problems that Dr. Foljam pointed out won't go away because someone says, "Well, let's override the Governor's veto". On this one, the Governor is right. We should support his veto, and vote red on this motion to override. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGE] a gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman may approach the well of the House. If we could get a mic up there. Looks like the mics are out. [SPEAKER CHANGE] We've got one. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, I speak in an opposition to, um, overriding this veto, but I do so for a couple of reasons. Um, having spoken on this bill at length, uh, when it was here the first time and the second time, and appreciating everything that Representative Arp tried to negotiate, but if you remember, um,um, and, and, there are multiple parts to this bill. And one of the other parts to the bill, besides drug testing, is the issue of the fingerprinting. And there was a resolution reached, um, on the House floor, that allowed some of us to have some comfort level, uh, about that provision. And the comfort level was, uh, that there was an agreement that there really wasn't going to be an attempt to seek the extended record check of anyone that would require fingerprinting, unless there was reasonable grounds to believe that the federal record check would disclose
Something that the state record check, which doesn’t require the fingerprinting, would otherwise suggest the; would lead the person to not an appropriate recipient of program assistance. And, we were going to do that by giving the commission time to pass rules that made that clear by February of 2014, and then not put those rules into effect until 2015 by a provision in the Bill that would say 2015 was the effective date so that if the commission didn’t do as we wanted or we were misled in any way in what was going to happen, there was time in the short session to fix that. Well, as you know, the Senate backed up on the agreement the House had in conference, and so if you look at your Bill that passed 2015 is not the effective date but 2013 is the effective date. Effective date even before the social services commission promulgates the rules in 2014, which is it’s own issue. But I was asked at that point whether I still supported it, and I made inquiry about that 2015 date and was told by folks in the majority, well, the Governor is likely to veto’d the Bill and there wasn’t any reason to try to get in worse negotiations with the Senate. Well, there was from my point of view. That 2015 date for a lot of us was the reason that we were willing to go along, because what it did was it said even if the commission gets the rules wrong, even if there is an issue, and in good faith across party lines we can do that. But that wasn’t honored. That agreement wasn’t part of the bill. And that fundamentally broke the trust that existed as to why there was a middle ground here that we should strike, and that we could strike. So for that first reason, I think the Governor is right. Right now, we put in the law that particular provision without the regulation, without the capacity to fix it before we come back in short session. Secondly, I indicated at the time I had concerns but I was willing to override them on the definition of reasonable suspicion. I’m not at all sure that’s what ought to be and the Governors’ made that clear that he isn’t either. But what I am sure of now that I’ve had even more time to go back and read is that we added in on the Senate side one of the provisions on what establishes reasonable cause, or reasonable suspicion. It says that if you have a record in the last three years. Well, I’ve decided to take some look at that and I can’t for the life of me figure out why because someone once did something wrong, within the last three years, that that alone gives rise to reasonable suspicion to then have them drug tested or record checked. We all make mistakes, and their only mistake at this point as far as we know is being poor. No something they chose to do. And that gets back to Dr. Fulghum’s eloquent point. I am at a loss to figure out why we have as a standard of reasonable suspicion that if you have a prior conviction in the last three years, that’s enough. I just don’t think it is. And because I believe we have the wrong standard in here; fixable; but nonetheless in here, and we can’t seem to be able to do that today, and because I think there was a breach of the agreement that existed on this floor that allowed some of us, in fact, 20 on this side to vote for that bill on the date, and because a number of us had questions to begin with, I believe that the Governor is more right than wrong on this, I’m going to vote to sustain his veto on this Bill, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative [??] please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The [??] is recognized to debate the Bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What I’d like to do is address some of the issues and the reasons for the legislation as it is currently before you. Much of this had centered around the drug testing of the TANF benefits. What I want to make clear is that the drug testing component is not for the food stamps; it is only for the TANF program, or what is called the Work First North Carolina. North Carolina’s temporary assistance for needy family is cash assistance to help move people off of welfare and into jobs. Being drug-free is an essential part of that mission. This requirement is not unreasonable given that many hard-working families willing to spend their tax dollars to provide this aid are tested for drug
… in their own jobs. The program is specifically for helping move people off of welfare and into jobs. Being drug-free is an essential part of being able to find and keep a job. It is not the intent of House Bill 392 to be an effective way to fight criminal drug abuse, but rather to end the bad practice of supporting active drug use and abusers with hard-earned tax money of the law-abiding North Carolinians. Illegal drug use is a violation of the law in North Carolina, and this specific welfare aid should go to law-abiding North Carolinians first, who are able to successfully participate in the workforce program, and not to active drug-users and abusers who are not able to find and keep a job. This Bill specifically requires drug abusers be referred to those other programs already in place to help overcome their drug addiction; then those people will be able to participate in this program. The Bill was funded in the budget, and actually to release those funds that are propriate in the budget to cover the cost of this program, we actually have to pass 392 because it was a contingent basis. If you vote for this Bill, you are saying that fleeing felons are not entitled to welfare benefits. If you vote for this Bill, you are saying that those illegally using drugs are not entitled to the workforce benefit program. If you vote for this, you’re saying government agencies should work together with law-enforcement to keep us safe and to catch criminals. If you vote against this motion, then you’re saying it’s okay for fleeing felons to receive welfare benefits. If you vote against this override vote, you’re saying those illegally using drugs are okay to continue receiving benefits. If you vote against this Bill, you’re saying that government agencies should remain in their silos and not cooperate to keep us safe. I urge your vote for the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative [??], please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Speak on the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] has recognized to debate the motion a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I am against tax payers supporting a drug habit of welfare recipients, and I think most of us, if not all of us, are. This Bill is not about that. The current system that we have in place is a substance-abuse and alcohol discovery program, and it tries to find out who these people are, assist them in their treatment, support their families, try to get them to where they’re work-able, and in no way supports drug-use; and to imply that my opposition to the Bill is based on my liberal attitude of supporting drug-use is just not accurate. I do not think it is healthy. It is deadly, it is counter-productive to a productive individual supporting their family; and I think the current system demonstrably works very well, and my only puzzlement here is why we’re trying to change a system that seems to be working just as well as it can be. And I’m certainly aware of the fact that the Governor’s Executive Order 21 implemented the first part of the Bill involving fleeing felons, probationers and parolees, so I just don’t think this is a useful addition to the law, and that’s why I’m supporting the Governor’s veto. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Doctor [??] would yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative [??], does the Gentleman yield? [SEPAKER CHANGES] Yes Ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Representative [??], did you realize that the existing system that you’re talking about continues to remain in place, still using the standard questionnaires that they’re been using to determine drug addiction, and that this is – drug and alcohol addiction – and that this is merely giving additional tools in the toolbox to identify those people who have a substance abuse problem? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I disagree. I don’t think it adds anything to the toolbox at all. I think the qualified substance-abuse professional at each county level…
Determines after interviewing the applicant, or recipient, whether or not there's a problem. And then takes the appropriate steps to see that person takes care of the problem or they don't get anymore benefits. So, I don't see what that adds to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. And follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And do you realize that this is simply going to put the same people into treatment programs that most of the people who have getting these benefits will have that paid for by medicaid, as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, that's not clear in the bill at all. It says it shall be the responsibility of the recipient. That may or may not be interpreted as to say they go out and pay for it out of their own pocket. Well, then they get it paid through medicaid. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Further debate. If not the question before the house is the passage of the motion. It's the motion to pass HB 392 not with standing the objection of the governor. All in favor vote I. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will ?? record the vote. 77 having voted affirmative and 39 in the negative. The motion passes. The senate will be so notified by special message. Representative. House 786 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] HB 786 an act that will require the department of public safety to study measures for addressing the problem of illegal immigration in this state and clarifying which employers are subject to the states e-varifying laws. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Warren, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. The governor ?? motion and to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank-you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to make a motion to pass house bill 786 not with standing the objection of the governor. Ladies and gentleman, colleagues this is the exact same bill that we passed out here a few weeks ago with a bipartison strong vote of 85 to 28. And the senate followed us with a very strong almost unanimous vote of 43 to 1. Nothing has changed in this bill. I encourage to join me in voting to overwrite the veto. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion. Further debate. If not the motion is to pass. HB 786 not with standing the objection of the governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker. I'm sorry. My light wouldn't go on. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Millis, the chair apologizes. Did the gentleman have a malfunction? I'm counting on the fact that there were no lights on when I put the question, but I'm counting on the fact there has been a malfunction. Is there any objection to allow the chair to withdraw the question and allow further discussion. Is there an objection? Representative Millis, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to speak briefly on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman us recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of the house. I apologize for that malfunction there. It was my intent to speak on this bill just to relay to you all and to the members of the public of why I was opposed to this bill on the 2nd and 3rd reading and why I will be voting against this veto override today. And so my comments are definitely intended to articulate that reason. And in discussing this bill it has been said and it is true that it is against federal law to hire an undocumented illegal immigrant. That is the truth, but one thing we must realize in conjunction with the truth is that we have a federal government that is not enforcing its own laws. And we have to revisit the fact of why that we passed, an e-varify law some sessions back based for the citizens of North Carolina. And the reason is is because the ?? federal forms to actually show that you are complying with federal law is fraudulently used in many cases. And this chamber passed an e-varify law in order to make sure that the employers of this state were actually employing documented legal citizens. So, I just wanted to put that back into the minds of the chamber here of why e-varify was passed. And the reason why it's important is because unlike the federal government ability to ignore its laws and its ability to print its own money is that this state can only take in what it takes from the patrians of the citizens of North Carolina. Therefore, we have a financial responsibility to make sure that we're spending tax payer dollars.
...on the aspects within the role of government. I would say that the federal government does not foot the bill for all of our Medicaid. It does not foot the bill for K-12. These are state expenses that an undocumented illegal immigration population has on this state. They are not minor costs. Indigent care within medical facilities and also in regard to, like I mentioned, K-12. We have a responsibility to the citizens of this state to actually have state laws that does not encourage illegal immigration within our borders. I would like to say this in closing, is that the question is is whether we are encouraging or discouraging illegal immigration by fundamentally gutting our E-Verify law. I can say, without the shadow of a doubt, that we are. The E-Verify is the best, the one mechanism we have to ensure that employers in this state are truly hiring documented, legal citizens. For us tonight, to vote to override and the bill before us, is truly voting to prevent employers in this state to hire undocumented, illegal immigrants, and I would urge you in regard to the cost it impairs our state and with the aspect of the rule of law to actually vote red on this bill before you. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to speak, and thank you, members of the Chamber. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Larry Hall, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and in this instance, I would ask that you support this veto override, and I want to tell you why. This certainly is a measure that we debated. A lot of work was done on this. At the heart of it, we're still number one agricultural state. We still have farmers and people in the industry that have to depend upon labor from all over the world, not just south of the border, but from all over the world and all over the United States, and this bill gives them the opportunity to have more security in their workforce. It doesn't force anyone to do anything illegal. It doesn't force anyone to hire anyone from any other state or from this state. It expresses the confidence in our farmers and their integrity and it gives them an opportunity to have a stable workforce so they can help contribute to the number one industry we have in this state. Again, I'd ask that you override the governor's veto on this, and let's give the farmers and the agricultural industry in our state the chance they need to compete. Let us continue to be one of the top agricultural states in the United States. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Cleveland, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The ?? is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We passed HP36 in 2011. HP36 provided a 90-day window for farmers to have illegal aliens working in their fields. They were happy with that. They asked for the 90 days. We gave them the 90 days. This present move to expand this to nine months has nothing to do with the farm community. They say it does. They're out there saying it does. I guess, in a way, it'd probably make it easier for them to hire and fire anybody they want for nine months instead of 90 days. What we're doing is opening up illegal aliens to just about every other profession in the state. This is a jobs bill for illegal aliens. That's exactly what it is. We presently pay 2.2 billion dollars in support of the illegal population in this state, and I'll bet you a dollar to a doughnut that two years from now, we'll probably be paying 3.2 million or more. We're going to become a magnet for illegal aliens, the same way we were in the early 2000s, late 1900s, '97, '98, along in there. It's the wrong thing to do. The governor is right. He's trying to protect jobs for citizens of this state. We've got a nine percent unemployment rate, and here we are with a jobs bill for illegal aliens. It makes absolutely no sense that we should go down this road. The law that we passed in 2011 that will effect most of the farmers in this state just went into effect 01 July. They have no idea what it's going to...
[NEW SPEAKER] And for them, whether it is gonna harm em or not, and I don’t think it will, because they got their 90 days for bringing in their crops. Georgia passed a more strict law than we did. Their farms are still functioning, they’re still growing crops, they’re still an agricultural state. Why we would want to take and make it harder for our citizens to gain employment is beyond me. I would vote to sustain the governor’s view. [NEW SPEAKER] Representative Collins, please state your purpose. [NEW SPEAKER] Debate a bill. The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. Well, I really didn’t plan on saying anything tonight I was hoping I wouldn’t have to, but with some of the other comments I feel compelled to reply. I’m from a big farming area. The farmers in our area employ people for six months at a time. A lot of these folks work the citrus orchards all down through Florida and then come up to our area up in May and stay until November. They work the cucumber fields, then they work tobacco and then they dig sweet potatoes last of all. I know that because I served as a pastor of a Haitian church, group of Haitian migrants for 5 years back in the 1980s and was also part of a ministry to a bunch of Spanish speaking migrants that the associate pastor at my church had started he had come here from Texas, and had actually lived in Mexico for about 18 years and was fluent in the language. I was fluent enough to help him out and talk to the people and that was about it. 90 days will not work for the farmers in my area, one of the effects of this bill is to help the agricultural community in our area and that’s why they have been so stridently opposed to the governor’s veto. I would also point out that the only other thing this bill does is, other than study a lot of stuff, it used to contain a lot of provisions, most of them now are just studies, but the other thing it does is provide parity for businesses in our state with businesses outside of our state trying to do business in our state. In other words, trying to take business away from businesses in our state because they have to use the same e verifier procedures that we use now. If we don’t pass this law, outside interests have an advantage over the businesses in our state as far as the e verified process is concerned. So I would ask that you vote along with me, vote green to override the governor’s veto and thank you for listening. [NEW SPEAKER] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the motion before the house is the passage of HB 786 notwithstanding the objection of the governor. All in favor vote I, all opposed vote no the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 84 having voted affirmative, 32 in the negative. The motion passes. The Senate will be so notified by special message. Representative Moore please state your purpose. [NEW SPEAKER] For a motion. [NEW SPEAKER] The gentleman’s recognized to state his motion. [NEW SPEAKER] Mr. Speaker, I move that the HJR 1024 which is the adjournment resolution be brought before the House for immediate consideration. [NEW SPEAKER] Without objection? So ordered. [NEW SPEAKER] If I may be recognized to debate the resolution? [NEW SPEAKER] HJR 1024 the clerk will read. [NEW SPEAKER] HJR 1024 joint resolution to ?? the reconvened session the House resolves the Senate concurring. [NEW SPEAKER] The gentleman is recognized. Ladies and gentlemen technically we have to read it a second time properly as the clerk will read. [NEW SPEAKER] HJR 1024 joint resolution to rejoin the reconvened session the House resolves the Senate concurring. [NEW SPEAKER] Representative Moore is recognized to debate the resolution. [NEW SPEAKER] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members this is the adjournment resolution which would adjourn the House tomorrow. We’ve drafted this in conjunction with Senate, they also will be adjourning tomorrow as you may be aware. The Senate is going to take these bills up tomorrow morning, we would reconvene on Wednesday May the 14th 2014 which we did, in which was our original reconvening day from our last adjournment. Members would ask you to support the adjournment resolution. [NEW SPEAKER] Ladies and gentlemen just a point of information from the Chair and with special buzz to Representative Floyd, there will be no need for any of you to be here tomorrow. We will have a skeleton session. We will have a few members here there will be no votes or action taken up its purely a procedural requirement. Further discussion, further debate on the resolution? If not, the question before the House is the passage of HJR 1024 on its second reading. All in favor vote I, all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 115 have voted in the affirmative and none in the negative. HJR 1024
The first passed at second reading without objection will be read a third time. [Speaker Changes] House ?? concurring. [Speaker Changes] Representative Ramsey, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized for point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] I want to address my seat mate, Representative Andy Wells from Catawba County. Happy Birthday. He's celebrated his birthday. I don't know what year it was, but celebrated his birthday yesterday. So, I want to wish him a Happy Birthday. [Applause] [Speaker Changes] Representative and ladies and gentlemen of the House, if we could come to order, I think what we will do -- technically we're still on the third reading of the resolution. Then we'll do a simple motion to adjourn. So, we will take that offer because I do know there are several notices and announcements. Why don't we go ahead and take the third reading and vote on this bill and then the chair will recognize notices and announcements? Further discussion? Further debate on the resolution? If not, the question before the House is to pass the ?? joint resolution 1024 on its third reading. All in favor say "I". All oppose "No". The "I's" have it. House joint resolution 1024 has passed its third reading. The Senate -- it will be sent to the Senate by a special messenger. Representative Yaunts, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized for point of personal privilege. I would like to recognize my seat mate, the Majority Leader, Edgar Starnes. Today is his birthday and while I have the floor I'd like to thank him for making me feel welcome, letting me draw upon his many, many, many, many years of experience to help me during this learning curve. Happy Birthday, Andrew. [Applause] [Speaker Changes] Representative Martin, please state your purpose. The House will come to order. [Speaker Changes] For a moment of personal privilege. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members, since this body last met we've lost in Afghanistan two of our adopted North Carolinians. One is Master Sergeant George Bannar who is from Orange, VA. He was killed August 20th in Wardak Province in Afghanistan. He served at Fort Bragg with Charlie Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Special Forces Group, Airborne. He had an associates degree from Fayetteville Tech Community College and earned a bachelor's degree from Campbell University. So, his ties to our state were indeed deep. This was his fifth deployment to Afghanistan. He was 37 and leaves behind a wife and his parents. Sergeant First Class Ricardo Young was from Rosston, Arkansas. He was killed this past Wednesday in Ghazni Province, Afghanistan. He served with the 738th Engineer Support Company, 307th Engineer Battalion Airborne, 20th Engineer Brigade, 18th Airborne Corps at Fort Bragg. His commanding officer was quoted as saying, "He loved family, football, and the army." He had done two tours to Iraq, one to Afghanistan, and was 34. I ask that you keep their family, their friends, and their units in your thoughts and prayers. [Speaker Changes] Representative Stam, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Point of personal Privilege. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman right now is appointed personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] I'd like to debate my seat mate on his birthday. When was it, Charlie? Wish him happy birthday. [Applause] [Speaker Changes] Representative Brian Brown, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized for point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] Members, it is a rare opportunity for a freshman legislator to have a seat mate with such years of experience and ?? in the legislative process. My only regret is that I wish he didn't talk so much so that I could pay attention to what was going on up here, but if we could all join me on congratulating and celebrating Speaker of the House, Thom Tillis's birthday last Friday, please do. Thank you. [Applause] [Speaker Changes] Representative Lucas, please state your purpose. [Speaker Changes] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker Changes] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been a while since we've been in session and when my seat mate came in this morning, he came in incognito fashion. I didn't recognize him. I thought maybe he may have been a proponent of the North Carolina mafia. He had on the dark classes and I just had to inquire, "What's this all about?" He said, "Well."
Gotten a little older, and I'm trying to hide, and I'd like to, for you to please join me in congratulating representative Bailey; Now since decided that he didn't need the dark glasses. But he has turned a year older, and his birthday was August 18th, and we'd like to say happy birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Adams, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Upon a personal privilege Mr. Speaker.. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The house will come to order [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker, I know tomorrow is a good day because most of us won't have to be here. But it's also a good day because its my seat-mate's birthday tomorrow, and I want to wish him a happy birthday. I've had the privilege of sitting next to this wise gentleman, learning so very much, so join me wishing representative Michelle a happy birthday. ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Samuuelson, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady's recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I knew on Friday, I tweeted that there were three of our members that had birthdays, and I'd been racking my brain trying to remember who the other one was, and it's Billy Bob Brawley right here, and his birthday was Friday as well, so would we wish him a happy birthday. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further notice, this is under announcements, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The house will come to order. Committee of ??, representative Murray, removed from our pro-?? sub-committee on HHS, point of chair pro-?? sub-committee on natural and economic resources. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Promotion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister speaker, I move that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Wednesday, September the 4th, at ten o'clock a.m. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves that the house do now adjourn to reconvene on Wednesday, September 4th at ten o'clock. All in favor say "aye". [SPEAKER CHANGES/MULTIPLE SPEAKERS] Aye [SPEAKER CHANGES] Seconded by representative Burr. All opposed, say "no". The "ayes" have it, the house stands to adjourn.