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 | April 22, 2015 | Committee Room | House: Elections

Full MP3 Audio File

Make that quickly hopefully not to a prevailing the committee from during proper consideration of things, we're going to start the past bill 318 which is passed on our calendar but before I do that, we'll the the clear board, we do have a clear board, call [x] if we don't have one yet. Alright, it's almost there. If you desire to speak on a bill today, please sign up and put your name in, and if you're with an organization or and which bill is it you want to speak on, now this may not pay now but the preliminary indicate this is the number of people who wanted to be heard on house bill 318 that we're going to start with. I can't afford to read the committee spending all its time on that one bill and not get to the other so it's my intention to take a vote on house bill 318 if that pleases the committee at 20 after the hour, so we're going to have to compact comments to the extent unless I try get that down, so we want to hear form the public, if we have got too many speakers we may to it if you are the same organization we may ask to talk about yourself and the very on the spokes person, if we can't do that we got too many to be heard without limiting the huge 20 seconds or something, then we may randomly select people from the list but it you'll sign up like the honor clipboard and the surgent at arms can sort them, let me know when we have that at part nine. William senator with house bill 4018 protect North Carolina workers, is this bill a PCS? Yes. No there is not. Ok representative  Cleveland. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman there is a clarifying amendment could we run that first? OK I understand that Representative Radel has a clarifying amendment to offer. It's already been passed out motion OK, you want explain the amendment George. The other thing the amendment does is expand on the definitions allowing the municipalities in the cities to what to exempt from and requiring you verify requirements? Are there questions from the committee on the amendment comment from the amendment. Representative Riddell your motion was to adopt the amendment those in favor say aye yap those no the aye's have it the amendment is about did represent the [xx] main bill assuming. Thank you ladies and gentlemen, in the last session we did some things with did verify that caused us a little [xx] the and the present bill will rectify those. The municipalities and cities, the counties, they're all bored with this the only one I've heard some promise with is the Chamber of Commerce. The National Chamber of Commerce is on board with either [xx]. We'll address that a little later. I'll go through the summery here quickly. We're going to amend the law to increase the number of employees who are required to participate in the federal e verify program. We're going to increase that by 110500 employers, there is still leaves 150, 000 employees in the state that will not be required to use e-verify. We're going to be [xx] for temporary employees this were going to exclude, exclude farm workers from the definition of employees under article two chapter 64 are going to require e-verify compliance in certain governmental contracts, now as a portion, it's taking out at the end last years' session, we've solved the problem that the municipalities and the counties had with that senator Backhim. Within the provided council documents may not be used to determine identification of residency for governmental or law enforcement processes or purposes. Going through the sections of the bill, Section one of House bill 318 amends the definition of article two, the state e-verify requirement, and amends the definition of employee to remove the exclusion for employers there's terms of employment that is less than nine months in a calender year, and as a provision excluding farm workers, independent contractors, or individuals who provide domestic services sporadic home for intermittent basis.

This section also moves that of employer to reduce the number of employees, and employer must have to be subject to the law, currently it's 25 it to five, and as I said we are adding basically  110, 000 employers, and there is still 150, 000 still out there that will not be required to verify. And we'rein definition of farm worker in independent contractor in that section. Section 2A of the bill adds a new section to the public contract's law prohibits any board or governing body of the state, or a state institution of political sub division from entering into a contract on this contract and subcontract is compiled with even file requirement. The government and entities can satisfy this requirement by including in the contract the time required any contractors and sub-contractors to comply with the state verified requirement, all they have to do is put a statement in there that they must comply. The provision specifically exempt from this application contract for transportation ranging in the sorely of purchasing the goods or contracting to piggy bank contracts, these are contracts or purchases established by Federal government which the contractor is willing to extend to a political sub-division the same favorable prices, terms and conditions. Section 2B and C [xx] prohibiting municipalities and counties from entering contracts unless the contract complies with state verified requirements, since you're not covered by the new section which is 2A. Section three amends the local government finance Act, with regards to penalties imposed on finance office to give false certification through contract agreement. On the current law the finance office is liable to any funds illegally committed or dispersed. This section adds a provision that inclusion of a contractor requires a contractor to comply to either a file requirements, deeds with this requirement officers. Here's what we're doing. Sections 4 through 10 make conforming changes to various sections of our chapter 64 section 11 has a new section to article 2 chapter 64 which establishes for consequences for violation of the new government, contract  verify requirement the commission of labor is going to check that the government identities are following the law, and if they don't they're going to put in on their website they maintain a list of government admitted this notified the are not following the law as they should. Section 12 adds a new article to chapter 15 A entitled identification documents, this provision makes the use of certain documents unacceptable by any government official for purpose of determine that a person identity or residency. The documents on a articulatory consular or other similar documents other than a valid passport and an identity document created by any program, and an identity document created by any person, organization, city, county or local authority except for authorized for the General Assembly. Anyone that has to have a councilor card is in the country illegally there is no way [xx] about it they are here illegally. Back in the early 90s the state allowed councilor cards to be used because of the large illegal immigrant population that we had so that it could function in society, they can open bank accounts. We even issued drivers licences back then based on them and for those of you that were here then it was a mess. I mean North Carolina became a real problem for the rest of the country everyone was coming through here, picking up a driver's license and going on out to the rest of the country and look like they were perfectly legal So we're going to put a stop to that. And 13, 14 or yes 15 are making conforming changes to motor vehicles law, the insurance law, medical assistance law to remove the use of consulate documents from listed documents that can be used to verify state residency and Mr. Chairman. Are there questions for Representatives Harger? I think that Representative Richardson may have a question. Yes my question, I have two if it's appropriate at this time, the first question is that since we

are exempting the [xx] workers and the other groups, does the document that you said that the state has for [xx] workers also have this stipulation in there that they cannot use this particular document for the agricultural worker that have been exempted from this bill? Are you speaking of the councillor cards? Yes [xx] The councillor cards were not use for identification for governmental or law enforcement purposes for anyone in the state. So the document that you said that the state has set up for also has this. I did not state that the state that the state said there is a.   No but I know committee meetings, I'm sorry, I've not followed procedure, follow up. In the committee meeting I thought you said that the agriculture workers and domestic were exempted this because the state has a different guideline for them to follow? No.  No?  I've exempted them because in doing some research they are very small portion of the problem and it was the big bugaboo in the past so they've been exempt. Followup? One more? Yes. So is it, will be chamber be speaking today or you tell me what the exception is for our state chambers. There is no exception for the state chamber. I said at the state member is not happy with lowering either by number of employers. The Federal chamber, The United States chamber is perfectly happy with e-verify and, [xx]. Okay this is from the U. S Chamber Of Commerce. The technical aspects of the e-verified system are improved beyond the U. S chamber with our members to reassess our position, we now support the Uniform National Policy expanding the use of e-verified. For the US Chamber the most important issues remaining for the e-verified employment clarification policy are strong preemption language for state and local laws that mandate the use of the e-verify our established state our local state investigation enforcement scheme is that new [xx] existing FAR rules with respect to Federal contractor obligations for use e-verify. So they have. Follow up [xx] [xx] I apologize for this, we will get this done we know are against cross over I have three more committee members I will ask question if we have time I've bee thinking. Okay thank you, Representative Hagan did you have a question? This is   [xx]   Okay we'll come back to you for that. Representative Hamilton, did you have a question? Yeah, thank you Mr. Chairman. The first question maybe for staff, are we is central Carolina in a position to determine that [xx] or FOC documents or not valid? [xx] [xx] interrupting, there has not been a lot of case while in jurisdiction on this subject. There has been a lot of cases from other circuits and while I don't know there is consenses. Generally speaking, laws like this that limits the use of these documents for state governmental purposes have been upheld whereas those that would limit their use in all transactions including private transactions have not been upheld. Follow up? Follow up. In this case, the way this is written [xx] only to law enforcement, state agency? [xx] drafting this implies to state governmental agencies including law enforcement agencies, as well as the local counterparts for those agencies. One last follow up? this is simple. OK. Representative Cleveland, you mentioned the United States Chamber of commerce, have they endorsed this bill specifically? I mentioned him in the e-verify context or for e-verify, I have not given them this bill to look at. I'm constantly correct, if you go to Mexico thanks and Mexico will not accept the council encourage for identification. I believe other than 33 states of Mexico 10 of them will accept the council required for temporary identification. Representative Willingham. Thank you Mr. Chairman, this is is the easy question. This bill has got so many exemptions in here. I think [xx] e-verified, but give me examples tho who are not The only thing thing this bill exempts are farm workers and domestics to verify and it exempts many things that

municipalities and counties do in contracting centralizing for meetings, transportation meetings, purchasing of goods not services, in reality does not include clear of exemptions. Representative Tobit?  To the chair. Yes sir?  I apologize for being late very humbly, but can you give me the that is of an amendment that I found lying at my. It was approved by the committee at the beginning of the discussion of this bill.  Thank you very much. Okay not seeing other questions at this point I want to target and  an opportunity briefly only can allow about a minute, I've got four people signed up on the list. I'll call you as you lest and if you just, we got mike there if you come to the mike do we need to move that mike out from the wall. If you come up to the mike give us your name and immunisation if any is aware. The first person in the list is Warn Wodad, and Mr. Wodad again apologise what happened to limit, one minute please Okay, am Warn Wodad director of [xx] lessons and I urge you to vote house bill 318, you have made progress by introducing am employment but check rate of unemployment in our state is actually over 10%, with a state population increase by 640000 people, but our jobs only increased 100000, if that is a sensible way to protect jobs for citizens and it works, then we need to get lid of this low pools and that is what this bill does. We are surrounded by states that have authenisting to work very well, companies to hire legal workers pay them under the table no workers car have a non pay advantage we shouldn't get away with it we require a photo ID to get an employment benefit simply require e-verify going to make sure jobs go only to legal residents. These unscrupulous companies who don't often advertise jobs, they looked at higher illegal immigrants e-verify would stop this, our state gives millions of incentives to create jobs I think we want to make sure these jobs go to people legally here and our State Legislature cut in employment benefits adding contract credit to encourage citizens, so I shouldn't make a similar effort for walking people, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Woodard. The next speaker is Fred Bronson. My name is Fred Bronson, I'm one of the ones got displaced I wish for a large election company will start out as a small, very small. Move closer to the mic. After about 300 people has laid up to speak it up two legally. After that I put in for a vacation, I go to Washington and speak to a representative of the United States off that Friday. His company during a month from recovery had to we done a job done there it was supposed to be all American made products all American workers they used all [xx] except myself and superintendent and jab. If he's at a breaker room. The panel room throughout the state will say, "men, you're saved us. You may mess one of me. " That's proud. He's talking along with show brothers serious crimes to action higher one that sees loopholes, in 2030 [xx] on the [xx] serous pays him he pays his workers in cash. This is done throughout the industry, it needs to be verified. Thank you, Sir our next pick is Alex [xx] okay, [xx] actually sorry and there is one other person that may indicate what Bill they wanted to speak on. Is it Lame Payne, or somebody Payne from the State Grange looks like we are done, I want to acknowledge that the Representative [xx] comrade who are also primary sponsors of the legislation are here and I'm assuming that you all will be satisfied to say nothing, that being the case representative Hager you are recognized for a motion. Thank you Mr. Chair I make sure I get this motion right, mostly favorable for house bill 318 as amended throw them to an new PCS is that the right motion? Yes sir. With a favorable report to the committee substitute and unfavorable to the original bill, That's your motion, right? Yes sir it is.  Alright of the discussion, all those in favor say aye, opposes no, the ayes have it, the motion is adopted, the next bill before the committee is house bill 633. Occupational licence, professional designation. Before I do that, I forgot a bit of house

keeping and it's important to stay on the good side of our Sergeant at Arms, our Sergeant at Arms today are Colton Adams, Martha Gordon is at the back in is up here at the front  and our pages for today, who we want to ask to stand, from their counties sponsored by representative [xx] one of our committee members is Bob Wolves Junior burg will you [xx] is at the back and then sponsored by Representative Rose [xx] of White county Desmond Woods. Desmond's also at the back. Thank you for being here.  Representative Torman[sp?] thank you Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Just here to run down, I think this is just a clarification bill, it specify and clearly state that real estate appraisers will be deemed as professional services in the state of North Carolina there was some unclarity before and this provides that clarity I'll take any questions, Mr. Chairman. Questions for Representative Torbett There is no P. C. S or anything Okay the [xx] right on time representative give it a go. Mr. Chairman force member report to house 633 [xx] I don't think it has any it goes to the floor. Discussion by the committee? Seeing none, those in favor say, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted.  Congratulations for [xx] this morning. House Bill 721, Subdivision Ordinance Land Development changes Rep. Co-Chair Brian. Is there an amendment or PCS? There's a PCS. There's a PCS on this bill. Has it already been distributed to the members? Is there a motion that the PCS speak before the committee? So moved. Any objections seeing none PCS for the committee. Thank you Mr. Chair and you thus we are going to have the up here for a little, and we get a chilled up for a last subject before we get to othe private today we'll probably have questions after that, and I'm sorry we probably got PCS and this is all about money, cooperate last night, so when we get the things and advance to our fantastic staff for working late and help me get all these out. The subject in orders bill, if you take a look on the stats, some will help explain it in the changes you can actually see through limited staff sheets. This relates to some of the rules regarding performance guarantees. These have to be put up by developers and builders are to make sure that certain infrastructure is put in everything, we can imagine what is being developed infrastructure the city has an interest in making sure that happens, and so they put out this performance guarantees. Basically this bill makes some changes I think to help make the process better and hopefully clear for all the parties in all that I've worked with, [xx] and municipalities and some other folks and making some changes to theirs and any of those. I think we've reached a pretty good consensus from then I will bring it into comment. The changes that I went through real quickly for you, the first which relate to basically Section 1 and then I guess it's section B and C and then G. Is basically just clarifying exactly what the performance guarantee will mean and it just outlines the different types of performance guarantee that has to be accepted. It's basically allowing developers and builders to make sure they have a chance to pick the tie guarantee that will work for them. Then in the second when you look at section G2 it just clarifies that the performance guarantee has to be returned when the improvement are actually completed and then the third goes on the state that if basically if they are not complete, they have to extend the performance guarantee and the though our developers still can chose whatever type guarantee that they want in that circumstance. Next change basically it's in a performance guarantee not to exceed 125% of the reason they estimated cost. Just trying to make sure the performance bond doesn't put into the map that's not in line it would be actual cost, it should be on

improvements and then end of the last one is that it's only used for the completion of the improvement, enough for appraisal of maintenance after completion. That's the point of the installation. I think maybe the performance guarantee is provided in a couple of other circumstances, and I may have to have staff give a reminder to which other sections that hits on but, its basically making the performance guarantee rules apply the same, and a couple of other statutory instances and I think I have covered the book but I will be grand to take questions. Okay questions committee Representative Hamilton.  Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'll trade one, I just finished my real estate license and I can't remember the pressure all I do is development can occur prior information is that the first step and being able to sell property. I think that is straight and correct that why . They can't they want a lot of problems, when they can actually start talking about  infrastructure up to that point staffing . There has been many instances Bradley county by district in particular where we have selling more, they has surety bonds, and the company went bankrupt and the county did not force the construction of the infrastructure, so you've got hundreds of laws and hundreds of candidates don't have the answers, infrastructure  to development, even when they surety was in place. so I think this is a good step for protecting the consumer, I might want to talk to you about a step further. Representative Adams.  Yes, just kind of ooking at the, it says the performance guarantee shall be returned upon the completion of the improvements for which performance guarantee is being required. if you previews are not completed, permanence guarantee shall be extended, and the form of such guarantee remain at the election of the developer. The dispute over whether or not the performance guarantee has been fulfilled, improvements are not compete. I've seen this before, and what is the, I guess am looking for a further collaborations bill is, one of the various step to speed the bill, is for some speed over whether or not the improvements have been made. Yeah, I mean the existing statute, I don't think, addresses it, and we haven't taken a step, I mean, I think the reality is most folks don't want to have a law suit that means you couldn't set up a process, it's just to say that we haven't gotten to the point of setting up a process for confirming who's going to deem complete at what point, and so at this point if they don't agree the [xx] the not going to issue whatever, they are not going to agree to release it. Representative Roniam[sp?] did I skip you? Did you have your question? Okay Representative Roniam[sp?] [xx] I'm sorry the Chair asked me a question there, I think you we're just asking about done to change it is if you have one project that is on-going, as long as you completed it, it doesn't matter what's happening on other projects. They have to release on that project it disputes or other things. They just can't try to use one project to impact another. Representative Warren, did you have a question? I just want to be recognized at the appropriate time for a motion.  Alright, are there other comments, questions from the committee? Seeing Representative Warren, you're recognized for the motion  Thank you, Mr. Chair, we move for a favorable report for the PCS for 721 unfavorable city regional. That okay? You happy with that? Okay, discussion? Seeing none, those in favor say, aye. Aye. Opposed, no. The ayes have it. The motion is adopted. Representative Bryan, you ready to go again. House Bill 792, Privacy and Protection you say you've got a PCS we do have a PCS.

Is that distributed? Have you all got them? Have you got the PCS up? Committee members got the PCS. Is there a motion  with PCS [xx] committee representative [xx] is recognised. Unfortunately still waiting for the PCS myself. I will, this is a 792 was  commonly maybe may have heard or referred to as revenge porn, think it's a fairly known case came out of California someone posting some pornography, just to cared to use the word up  to get back at an old spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend whatever their is actually a website for it, so what this bill is doing is basically making that a crime those and I think given a civil I'm sorry it's all criminal I mistake myself yes. Trying to make sure I got the pieces [xx] for all of our sake I won't read to you all the definitional language there you either yourself we have tried to work with some parties including one of the groups issues they may comment I don't think this bill covers everything they would like to cover, but I think you'll see it's a big step in the right direction for protecting folks is well now with our mind the world that we have their is just a lot is a lot easier for people to post things that may not other wise be a crime right now and this allows protection for folks and frankly recourse when this kind of thing happens and I'm glad to take any questions I think most of it speaks for itself you are ready for the questions OK Representative Bishop is also a response from this do you have anything to say at this point? OK, Representative Torbett is recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair Question on the bill please  Rev. Brown can you just elaborate just a little bit on the impact? Say this happens like to Junior High high school probably might, I don't know what kind of this obviously will now appear on their either juvenile or permanent record can you explain to somebody how that impacts [xx] I may [xx] there're a whole bunch of rules that [xx] matters and how those things are dealt with and I've seen all the same rules will still apply with respective manners Representative staff member Mrs. [xx] I don't know [xx] I just as a thought, I think that was a part [xx] to the extend that there is some other law that was  violated at 15 years old and the same process and protection for a minor in that we, will still be in place, it doesn't do anything from the minor perspective  and certainly if you, then make it easier colleges student, which you can imagine what is happening to colleges students as well, this is a fairly serious penalty. Rep. Warren, I think I skipped you. You indicated you wanted to be recognized. You did, Sir. That's al right, I just want to make a comment to the bill sponsor, and I think this bill, and the next two that he has are excellent bills, and will support all three, and I think they probably don't warrant a lengthy explanation, are pretty self explanatory, I'll like to be recognized for a motion on this one one [xx] time. Okay, are there other questions or comments from the committee? Seeing none, we do have a speaker, Alex Moore, wanted to be heard on this, Mr. Moore? Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, representing the North Carolina coalition against semantic violence. So I want to thank representative Brian, representative Bishop, and representative Faircloth and the other core sponsors of this bill, an important first step. Certainly there are some instances where images such as this can be stolen by someone who is not in a relationship, but the person depicted in those images could be posted online, this bill can cover those. We'd like to see that look at it at some point, and appreciate the bill sponsors hoping that they're hearing our concerns, and look forward to working with them as the bill continues to pass though the process, thank you. Thank you, questions, comments from members ready if it's saying none, Representative [xx] you're recognized for a motion. Thank you Mr. Chair, I'd like to move for a favorable report on House bill 792. That would be to the proposed committee substitute as is not amended, first committee substitute, a favorable report to

it and unfavorable to the original bill, right? Yes sir. OK, questions comments? Seeing none, those in favor say aye? Aye Oppose No. The ayes have it. Next bill, Representative Byron do you mind doing house bill 793?  I'll be glad to, thank you Mr. Chair this is the secret peeping bill. Right now we obviously have a law against secret peeping it's also a felony to be secret peeping for gratification purposes. All this Bill does is add as a felony secret peeping which is then used, and secret peeping can include, not just like looking in a window, but taking a picture, auto video, things like that, obviously things that are very easy to do, for the purpose of harming, intimidating, extorting, threatening or defrauding another person. So there is the gratification side and then there is someone could just use this to harm someone else to intimidate them. Rep. Torbett? [xx] it actually has occurred. Let's say a person across the street to me has set up a camera, and that camera is obviously focused on my residence, but when confronted about that, they say actually it's a security camera for their property but to me, it is something that's totally serveilling my coming and going, my personal habitat so to speak, would that fall onto this under this law. I'll admit that staff but I think it would now because I don't think it falls under any of those purposes. You mentioned I'm sorry. Followup Mr. Chair. One of the purposes and I'm sorry it was in you description let me go back to the bill and save it perhaps intimidating, I'm not perceive it person to be intimidate and could see were have a lot of people would think that you're being [xx]. I mean I'm glad the thing about economy I struggle to think and their maybe better lawyers in here than I am, but I think you have prove maybe some intent regarding intimidation and that might be difficult. The bill does satisfy that it has to be [xx] and you should be secretly or start patiently using of installing the device. So she is follow up so anything to the billing will not will not be covered. Very wrong is that correct? Ms. Cummings, do you want to comment again?  It's designed room as the bedroom, a restroom, a bathroom, a shower or a dressing room, but it's not limited to that. Thank you Mr. Chairman we're you going to ask about drones? are there any questions or comments? Representative Adams.  Yeah I was, other device a drone. That would be an absolutely excellent instrument to use for this sort of thing. But it could be covered. Would drones be covered under this.  I think if it's into those rooms. That would be correct Okay representative Torbit? I'll try to add to the same, but that was also covered under the drone legislation under the current peeping laws that are in place. Other questions or comments from the members of the committee seeing none, okay Representative Bishop you're recognized for a motion. [xx] For the PCS, there is not a PCS on that. Okay, sorry, okay. Favorable report to the bill, is there comment or discussion, seeing none, those in favor say, aye Aye   Those ayes have it, motion is adopted. Representative Brian, how about one more time, House bill 794 PCS, PCS, okay. There is a PCS on this and everybody heard that, and there is a motion that PCS before the committee any objections? And I need the PCS before the committee. Thank you Mr. Chair again this one we were, as far as my staff find, late to the nine o'clock deadline. This is just what is commonly

known as online impersonation. So this is protection from impersonation someone stealing, effectively maybe packing or email account and sending it out, I might have stuff can't comment a little because I know I did a great job working through the various persons. You've got the person who is being impersonated being impersonator, and then other folks, and I've just messed up the definitions, but Karen do you mind commenting a little on the bill? The bill defines three different people who try to avoid [x] person, over and over again. There is a person who is the impersonator, who assumes another person's identity in an incredible way, that other people would believe [xx] There is a person who is in the bill called the  misrepresented person, there is a person whose identity is being exhumed, and they term the thing to impersonate, somebody who is actually engaging in [xx] person who is doing it for sale is called an imposter in the bill. So if you have an imposter who takes on the identity of the misrepresented person, and then either to the the harm of that person, because it harms their reputation because of how they are acting as that person, or to another person, in some way xx] [xx] to the third person, that imposter could be guilty of the crime, a the civil action committed [xx] established. Next. An easy example might be, if someone you are emailing with back and forth your mum, you need extra money, someone which is to hack that email, ask you mum for the money, your mum wires the money to the person where your mum, you are harmed because they have taken money you should have gotten, and your mum is harmed because has now sent the money to someone else, [xx] trying to cover both parties might and might get harmed from the on line taking of your impersonation. Motions, comments, questions from the committee? Let me see, Rep. [xx] you're going to make the motion, [xx] sir Yes sir. OK, Representative Bishop, is there any other comments question before I take the motion? representative [xx] to the proposed committee service treated non favorable to the original committee is that correct, comments, discussion saying those in favor say aye, those oppose say no, congratulations committee you did six [xx] adjourn [xx].