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

searching for

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

House | June 3, 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 in arms will close he doors. members and visitors will please silence all electronic devices. Today's prayer will be offered by Representative Brody. Members and visitors in the gallery are asked to please stand and remain standing after the player for the pledge of allegiance. The Chair not seeing Representative Brody we'd ask Representative Sheppard will the gentleman be willing to lead us in vocation? The dangers of being a pastor serving in the House, you never know when you're going to be called upon. Let us pray. Our gracious heavenly father we come to you today, we want to praise you and thank you Lord for the opportunity to serve you in this great state. We thank you for the gifts and abilities that you've given us. We pray today that you will be with many of those that today are suffering from one sickness or another, we pray for our military, they're in harms way throughout this world and we pray that would be with them and [xx] head of protection around them. We pray that you give us wisdom and guide us in all that we say and do in this chamber may be we be respectful for one another and may all that we say and do bring honor and glory to you. In Christ name we pray. Amen. Amen I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God indivisible with Liberty and Justice for all. The gentleman from [xx], Representative Lewis is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker, the journal for June 2nd has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it stand approved at written. Representative Lewis moves that the journal for June 2nd be approved as written. Those in favor will say aye, those who opposed NO, the ayes have it and the journal June 2nd is approved. Ratification of bills and resolutions, the Clerk will read [xx] to 500 Bills due to [xx] for presentation to Government. Senate Bill 112 enact urging all Coastal Community Colleges to offer courses to commercial fishing and agriculture. Senate Bill 597, an act to repeal references to the ABC's program, the general statutes. House Bill 340, an act providing for the requiem burial of all the states veteran cemeteries. House Bill 346, an act to clarify the counties and enforce ordinances within the state's Public Trust Areas. House Bill 574, an Act to provide that the state wildlife laws do not apply to persons between the dates of December 29th and January 2nd. Chapter bills will be noted. Members our nurse of the day today is Caren from Greensboro. Ms. Caren thank you for being with us here today Representative Boles and Alcohol, Beverage Control Committee Report. House Bill 909, ABC omnibus legislation for conference. Counter, members this is only just a motion in concurrence, chair would ask this objection of the bill to concur be added for the day? Objection. The Chair would ask the gentlemen, would remind, this is not a second or third reading, this is just on a concurrence motion. To the gentlemen still wish to object to it based on the concurrence motion? Well Mr. Speaker, we don't really know what we're concurring on at this point, and so why not let it go till tomorrow? Well, Chair is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker I move that the concurrence or the consideration of the concurrence for House Bill, 909 be added to today's calendar notwithstanding the aforementioned objection. Further discussion, further debate, if not the question before the house is the motion that House Bill 909 the day's calendar, those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. the clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 75 having voted in the affirmative and 36 in the negative the motion is adopted and will be added to today's calendar. Members the chair is happy to extend the courtesy of the gallery to a number of special guest today.

First of all, we have representative from the Concerned Women for America would you all please stand so we can welcome you with us today by the house re-presenters. Thank you for being here. On behave of all the members of Mecklenburg County the chair is happy to extend the courtesy of the gallery to Shallot City Council members Edricks, Clare Fallen, Kini Smith, LaWana Mayfield and Greg [xx] would you all stand so we can welcome you as well, thank you for being with us. Our motion of the members of the Union county Representatives Arp, Brody and Horn the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to the sweet Union Republican Women, would you all stand so that we can welcome you with us today. On behalf of Representative Insko and Meyer of Orange county the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Colbert town mayor Lydia Lavelle and Chapel Hill Town mayor Mark Kleinschmidt. Would you please stand so we can welcome you. Thank you for being with us. Representatives Brown, Bryan, Jones and Lambeth they are recognized to send for the the committee report the clerk will read.   Rep. Brown, [xx] Johnson, Lambeth health community report Senate bill 366 amid certain requirements to committee favorable, calendar Senate bill 423 foster care family act favor and referred to judiciary three Committee substitute number two referred to the committee on judiciary two, Senate bill 487 health choice technical division AB favorable house committee substitute unfavorable original bill, Madam clerk on the previous referral that should have been judiciary three on the bill just read, the original bill on favorable calendar committee substitute calendar Rep. Blast and Jordan are recognized to sent forth the committee report the clerk will read, Rep. Blust, Jordan judiciary two committee report while 60 no contact order for exploration favorable house committee substitute unfavorable senate committee substitute, Senate committee substitute on favorable calendar house committee substitute calendar senate bill 154 clarifying the good Samaritan law favorable house committee substitute the committee substitute unfavorable calendar house committee substitute calendar, and is blust in Jordan recognised to send forth the committee report clerk will read. Rep. Blust, Jordan and judiciary two communities report Senator 336 a state planning uniform trust code favorable house committees substitute on favor senate committee substitute is re-refered to finance, senate committee substitute unfavorable calendar house committee substitute is re-refered the committee on finance, the gentleman from Gaston, representative Rep. Torbett is recognized to sign forth the conference report, the clerk will read, Mr. President of the senate, the speaker of the house, the committee is supported to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House Representatives of House Bill 795, a Bill to be in [xx] actual representatives a farmer [xx] the State of Environmental Posture Act, so we Agriculture Environmental Match Resources Committee Substitute adopt a 52015, fourth edition engrossed to 520615 submit the following report. The House Representative agreed to the following amendment to the Senate Agriculture/Environment/Natural Resources Committee Substitute adopted 52015 forth edition in gross fund 2015 and the house concur on the committee substitute as amended on page one lines 23-26 but deleting those lines [xx] recommended the Senate and House Representatives adopt this report. The [xx] approves report June, 3rd 2015, [xx] for the Senate, Senate work, read Jackson and Ford concilee[sp?] of the house of Representatives, Representative Torbett Hager and Ray Calendar for what purpose does the gentleman from Onslow representing Shepard Ras to speak while I was in the chambers I'm able to get to my vote, I might be recorded voted yes on the previous vote on the motion there on the calendar? Then you'll be recorded as having [xx] that motion. [xx] the Chair

strikes the serial referral for Senate Bill 336 short title that was the estate planning uniform first code, the serial referral, the financial stricken calendar. Messages from the senate the clerk will read House Bill 222 retention election support in court. Calendar. House bill 347 Gram Bacon Occupancy Text/ [xx] [xx] House bill 405 the clerk will read. Representative Jordan are more, house bill four and five are entirely to protect property owners from damaging results from individuals acting on access and the scope of permissible acess to conduct granted to them, general assembly of North Carolinian Act. For what purpose does the gentleman from Camblin represent Socker rise? To make a motion. Gentleman recognized for a motion. I move that house pass house bill 45 not withstanding the objections of the governor. The gentleman is recognized to the motion, the gentleman is also recognized to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker. when I read the bill of statement I find that this body and the governor agree on quite a lot. Let me from the statement, and I quote, "this bill is intended to address the valid concern of our states businesses, how to discourage those bad actors who seek employment with the intent to engage in corporate espionage or act as an undercover investigator. This practice is unethical and unfair to employers, and it's a particular problem for our agricultural industry. This needs to be stopped. " So both those points, in committee and debating the floor, the language is explained and debated in great detail. So apparently there's no disagreements to the needs for the bill, and is apparently no disagreement with the wording of the bill in regards to the acts to be covered. Why then are we here and what's the problem? Statement goes on to say, "I don't what to discourage good employees of any industry from reporting illegal activities to the proper authorities, which is why I will be doing house bill 405, end quote. Ladies and gentlemen, the intent and the wording of this bill is in full agreement with the first part of that sentence. I don't want to discourage any good employees of any industry from reporting illegal activities to the proper authorities. Both in committee and the floor, the same issue is asked in many different ways question like this, what about the good employer who sees something, what's he supposed to do? Well, there's a two part response to that first, my answer as well as the other primary sponsors and other interested people who had a hand in this bill, the answer is always the same, report it to the proper authorities. Now let's remember this bill addresses trespass, not only in agricultural settings, but in the retail business hospitals, factories, clinics, hotels and other service businesses. So proper authorities. I think we can all agree that proper authorities are law enforcement and state federal regular agencies such as United State department of agriculture and not the media, and not private special interest organizations. This bill allows for legitimate employees to report illegal activities or work place practices, there is no warning in this bill prohibits that, none. The second part of the response to the what about good employees question addresses intentions from the section of the bill the deal with is 99 A2 sub paragraph B2 and let me read that section to you an employee who intentionally enters the none public areas of an employers' premises for a reason other than bona fide intention of seeking or holding employment or doing business with the employer and thereafter without authorization, records images or sound occurring within the employers' premises and uses the recording to breach the persons duty of loyalty to that employer now I

could explain that but I will I going to quote Representative Glaziers comments during the floor debate only passes because he was much more eloquent than I and I quote, so the real disagreement comes on provision two which I just read to you but here is what has to happen the only person here who is liable employee who intentionally, again totally purposefully, enters an none public area of an employers premises for reasons other than bornified intent of seeking or holding their job and then without authorization record images and uses them to bleach their duty of loyalty to their employer so there are three element going on here, this is [xx] don't bother in something bad and says I have a bigger duty here than to my employer, this is a person who intentionally decides that they're going to do something outside the scope of their job. Even in that situation and records the stuff, and then uses it to bridge their duty of loyalty to their employer. This is a small amount of folks who are in effect in my view, fraudulently taking their employer's money and trying to undercut their employer. I view this as a limited crowd and it doesn't cut down on lots of other investigations. Representative Glazier hits the nail on the head, he clearly defines what sections are covered, it doesn't stop good employees from reporting illegal activities to proper authorities. And it doesn't stop legitimate investigations. Ladies and gentlemen this bill is simply not has been portrayed to be by technology. A lot of time was spent by members in both chambers form both sides of the isle, to get the wording right. I personally spent time talking with opponents of this bill, some of them are listed on one of the shoots on your desk, who came to me and voiced their concerns as a result of all that work to multiple alliterations, the wording was changed to narrow the scope, very narrowly to make the legislative intent very, very clear. Even after the committee debate, I think we spent about 40 minutes on this Bill and J2, there were one or two members who had reservations in that committee. I went to them, I said I understand that you are having problems with some of the wording here. Can you help me with substitute wording that you would like better? Is there something that you can tell me? And they told me that they didn't have any better wording. I will tell you this, that I and all the sponsors of this Bill as well as sponsors of the campaign in Senate Bill, we're willing to work with any and all interested parties after today to re-examine the wording of the bill, as it relates to what I feel is the very, very, narrow, narrow, narrow concerns that some people have, and if after we work with all the interested parties, we come to the conclusion that we need to add a phrase, or a sentence, or paragraph for increased increase clarity I commit to you that I will have that on the technical corrections bill on another vehicle and a bill we have yet to pass through here, a bipartisan majority of 99 members in this chamber mutually agree with the need for this bill. A bipartisan majority 99 members of this chamber agreed with the intent of this bill, and a bipartisan majority of 99 members in this chamber agreed with the wording of this bill when we pass this bill. Right now we only have two options, red or green. I tell you that I never would have sponsored this bill if I didn't think that it was absolutely necessary to protect North Carolina businesses and I believe that we need this protections now. I ask you to vote green.  For what purpose does the lady from Guildford Representative Harrison rise? To debate the motion. The lady has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house I really appreciate Representative and Dickson and Glazier for their hard work on scaling back the impact of this bill. It started out a lot worse but fact of the matter remains that, based on the interpretation of a lot of lawyers who are smarter than I, that an individual who discloses illegal activity at his place of work, becomes liable to the penalties that are provided for in this proposal. So, I'd like to just give you a couple of real world examples hypothetical's. Saw the House, individual series, I saw the House taken in sick cows and mixing in bad basic but real basic it's and the employee sees this and discloses it and that ends

up with a beef recall of millions of tons of beef that maybe are gone out to there is a schools, a nursing home where I employ my witness abuse and the nursing home resident sitting in a his or her waste and that rotten food or otherwise neglected, those are the kinds of things that would be disclosed by some sort of picture or video unspeakable acts of animal cruelty, view all, I can't even watch those,  but you are aware that those exist, and a teenager who goes to work for pet store, and sees the abuse of the pets in the pet store, takes a picture, and puts it on the Facebook page. These are all individuals that could be subject to a $5, 000-a-day fine up to, in fact, there is, my constituent pointed out to me that Elton Sinclair may not have been able to publish, The Jungle. He got this job as an undercover journalist disclosing the horrors that were taking place at meatpacking warehouses in the turn of the century. I passed out a list of the diversity of groups that are opposed to House Bill 405, otherwise known as the Ag-gag Bill, and I urge you to sustain the governor's veto, and these are quite, the diversity isn't a complete list, this is just an example, of the collection they ranked from veteran's groups to domestic violence groups, to AARP[sp?], to LAPA[sp?], to loose outlets, to animal welfare organizations and environmental groups, they're all concerned that an individual who discloses legal activity on the [xx] of this employer would become subject to the penalties in this suit and this would cycle otherwise important information getting out and I think in this era one we continue to cut back on the funding of the agencies that are charged with performing these investigations, we can increasingly rely on since an act of this to let us know about what's going on that's wrong so I urge you to sustain the governor's leader. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Martin rise? To debate the motion the gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker, members I agree completely with intent expressed by the gentleman from Cumberland to protect this is from having their trade secrets stolen, their business practices stolen, their property, their money and so forth taken out of their property. I would like to think we'd all agree with that intent and I would certainly vote for a bill that was narrowly tailored to do just that, this however is not that bill. The lady from Guilford has talked, has given some hypotheticals about how this could go wrong, but let me elaborate on that just a little bit. Say a citizen has some concern about abuse at a nursing home or a day care facility and wants to do something about it, and one could argue, fraudulently, goes to get a job at that nursing home or that day care center with the express purpose of uncovering evidence about abuse that they suspect is going on there. Now it's clear that this law, if passed, would not prohibit them from reporting any crime that they see to law enforcement authorities, to the District Attorney. One of the first questions, the police or the D. A. Is going to ask them though is, what evidence do you have? And they're going to say well, I could have taken some pictures that would clearly proven it but that's against the law. There were documents that clearly showed the wrong doing, but it was against the law for me to bring those to you, DA, Police Officer. But what happens if that citizen, seeing a wrong occurring, seeing abuse, decides to go break the law anyway and take the picture of the abuse. To pull out some of the employer's documented evidence showing the abuse and take that to the District Attorney. Well, if this law passes, the District Attorney can take that evidence, prosecute the employer, put the employer in jail where there is some chance, the employer will be sharing a jail cell with the citizen that reported it, and that's just wrong. Now, I appreciate the bill sponsors, his expression of an intent to work with folks to try to cure this problem with the bill. I hope that that will happen. But that's not the bill language we have before us and we don't have the ability to amend it. So understand ladies and gentlemen, the house in the Senate of North Carolina override the veto, this goes into law, and will be the law of the land of our state. I can support a narrowlated bill, I can't support something that's so broad reaching, so I'll be voting to sustain the for what purpose does the lady from [xx] Representative [xx] rise? To speak on the over write. the lady has the floor to debate the motion.

Motion, thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the house, representative Harrison and I are both animal advocates. We both have voted for puppy meals, we both done everything we can first day nuder. I'm an animal advocate, but I have researched this bill, I have read this bill thoroughly and I have voted for the bill once and I will vote for the overwrite and I will tell you that we should get law enforcement involved and not cameras involved, because cameras can lie, when they pick one little thing that's happening somewhere and then they throw it out there in the public to think that that's what all slaughter houses are doing etcetera. You get the law enforcement, that's why we have law enforcement and that's why we get them involved. And that's why I'm voting for this overwrite. It's not because I don't love animals or one thing with the traffic protected but we need to vote for this because it has gotten out of control with some so called employees have done to businesses. I urge you to vote for the override. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cleveland, Representative Speciale rise? To speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. I voted against this bill when it came out on the floor and I was wondering when it republicans who did so. Why did I vote against it? Because I didn't do my research. I didn't read the bill, I didn't look into it. I have since had the opportunity to do so, we've obviously had plenty of time since the time this past up until now. All of the excuses that I'm hearing about this Bill and what could happen and this, this Bill is designed to go after people who intentionally hire on to a knowing down well they are not there for a job, they are there to an expose for ABC news or some other crazy stuff, or they are there to slander a company, it has nothing to do with legitimate whistle blowers, all you have to do is read the Bill. The last section of the Bill, it says nothing in this section shall be construed to diminish the protections provided to employees under article 21 of the chapter 95, or article 14 of chapter 126 of the general statutes. Well, guess what? I pull those up and say what the heck is this? Those are whistle blowers protections, you don't lose those. Only if you're defrauding, only if you went and took the job, only if you your intent there was less than honorable that's the whole point on this. If I get a job somewhere, and in the course of doing business I see that my either my employer is a crook, I can turn him in and I'm good to go. But if I take the job because I want to do a expose for ABC news? Well, that's a whole different story, I'm frauding the employer. that's what this is about, so, all of these organizations on the back of this list that was lying on your desk, they've been listening to the news media, who's been listening to the opposition, and it's just simply ridiculous, this is a good Bill, while I voted against it last time because I didn't do my research, I've since done so, and I intend to vote yes on this veto override and I ask you to do the same thing. It's a on this good honest Bill for good honest people. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, representative Mitchell rise? To speak on the motion. Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen of the House, the one question that has yet to be answered in this whole debate, is what happens do an honest investigative investigation. Are we going to trample on the rights of our free Press in order to try to stop whatever it is that this Bill wants to stop. Investigative reporting has meant a lot, too much of the businesses in our country today. It has meant much to the saving of tax dollars and everything that you can think of. You have a reporter who goes in to a company where there has been in incidents of fraud or anything like that committed by the company or any of the members of that company who have done anything wrong that preys on the public, not to the public good, they're to maintain that constitutional right to freely report what is going on there by investigative reporting. Even the supporters of this

bill have indicated that this is a problem that they have not yet covered and I cannot support any bill that does not give, that takes away that liberty given by the Freedom of the Press in order for investigative reporters to go in and try to save the State money, to try to save lives, to do these things that are necessary in order to provide the public with the knowledge that they need to have. Once the investigative reporting situation is cleared up and how we can do it well, then I will be happy to vote for this bill even in its form right now, but until we answer the question about investigative reporting I will not be able to support this bill. Mr. Speaker? For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Szoka rise? To ask Representative Michaux a question. Does the gentleman from Durham yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? Yes Sir. He yields. Thank you. Representative Michaux, where in the bill does it state that any news organization following the law cannot conduct an investigative report? I would answer that by asking you a question, When have you ever does it state that they can do it without anything happening to them for having done it? For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Blast rise? To speak on the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker, and members of the House for, I think most of you who have been here more than this being your first term know that I'm somewhat of a process walk may be a process nerd, and I have not been reluctant as I think Senator Tillis can tell you to take on leadership even on my side, and that being said, this is a little bit disappointing to me in the last chair the committee through which this bill came, we had a third hearing but the public was allowed to speak, members were allowed to present every amendment they desired and I'm a little bit disappointed it takes till now once the train's left the station for people to bring forward some of their claimed shortcomings in the bill. We would have been glad to have dealt with some of these issues that they claim, and I'm not wanting to bestow any credence upon what's been claimed. I think they are things that could be done to improve this as there could be anything and I think there will be in the future, but why were people not willing to do some of this work when the bill came through? I've got the bill history up when it was on the floor. Representative Martin, I know you can't amend it now, but when it was on the floor you could have made these points and offered an amendment, same as anyone over there, anyone on our side, and yet the amendments were made, they weren't offered, and I am disappointed that we have this process here in the General Assembly, the committees do work and people don't want to come forward with what they see, the changes they want to see in a bill when it's timely to do so. So I'm with Representative Szoka, I see we're in the Senate where Senator Stein offered an amendment that I think is probably a good amendment. That, and some other tweaking of this may well be in order, I hope we can find a vehicle to do so this session, but I'm not willing to go along especially with what I feel to a degree has been misinformation about this. It's easy to stick a label on, tell a whole bunch of activists this is Ag-Gag or this is going to allow this or that, generate a lot of email and pressure from people. When you talk to some of them who contact you they don't know the details they've just been told something's bad, and they, in all sincerity, think that it's bad, and think that we're bad for passing it, but we can't let what people think that's not correct, dominate or dictate what we do. So as I said, I'm willing to work on improving this, but I think the Bill's worth going forward. I think the sponsors did a good job. I think they were all sincere, and wanting good law for the state, and I urge you to vote yes for the motion. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Connie rise? To speak to the override.

  The lady has the floor to debate the motion. Ladies and gentlemen, I wasn't going to speak on this, but I've moved sometimes to stand up, and just express my concerns. The board process was brought up, and I agree that Representative Bliss[sp?] has been conscientious in defending our process up here, when we don't follow it, and we have not always follow the process, this is the case, that the process did work through a committee work over here, came to the floor and I was one of those that voted for it, I had read the bill and I thought that there was some questions I had, I thought I heard them answered but what didn't happen through all of that was the public, the public did not get the full information. Now we think sometimes that they do, that they're listening, that a 24-hour overnight notice of the bill coming on the floor, they don't follow our committee work and so it went to the senate, it passed and then the process worked again, the three branches of government. Our executive branch, our governor he was hearing as this bill moved, he started hearing some people within all these segments that you've heard, they're now lobbying us, saying wait a minute, wait a minute wait a minute it has this problem, so he vetoed it, that's the process and now it's back to us to make a decision. What we will do now get another shot at it, I quite frankly think that's good sometimes. For good legislation that a lot of us think that should not be vetoed and it has been, it comes back and we have that opportunity again, the process is working. I will say that throughout these last 48 hours of hearing and my district drill down in my district, write up 200 emails, 10 calls with many questions. The bill sponsor said he will put in the technical corrections to fix some question that has a problem, that people have a problem with, they are a couple of others people have a problem with. I have been here long enough to know that that technical corrections bill gets loaded out and then stuff gets taken out, and I know we want to give our word up here, but we have an opportunity today to say what so many questions still unanswered about this bill. So much confusion, whether our constituents back home who are the people of North Carolina, that we are up here making this rules for, if their is this major doubt, we have a chance to slow it down, lets take it back, let's get it right, fix those corrections in a real bill that we can all wrap our hands around. And today I am going to be voting to sustain the governors override because I have listened to the people in my district and to the confusion that I am hearing from many members still in this house. Thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from wake, Rep. Martin rise? To speak a second time on the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion a second time. I appreciate the gentleman from Guilford, respect for the process and the discussion on how the process so far has been followed, but for someone who is a self prescribed policy he is ignoring a pretty significant part of the process. Article two, section 22 of the North Carolina constitution which makes the governor part of the process of making legislation. Here the legislative branch we have a tent seeing the gentleman from Guilford is  like I am a parent we think that our bills that come out of the general assembly are some how just like the children that come out of our bodies they are perfect in every way. Well, not always and that's why we have a system of cheques and balances that does make the governor relevant to the process and part of the process. So we shouldn't get our feelings hurt and get bent out of shape if the governor does veto some of our bills and send it back over here. We should instead view it as an opportunity, take a second look and if we agree as some folks say they're going both vote for and against this motion if we agree that there are some things that needs to be fixed let's use that opportunity that's built in to the process to fix the bill. the fact that we've done a good bill and followed the process so far, doesn't mean that we're somehow rewarded by overriding the governor's detail. That's not how it works.

We've identified some problems with the bill that has many good provisions in it and we have an opportunity before us to fix those problems and then come back with new language and pass that. So if you think along with me that that's what we need to do, go ahead and vote red on this motion. What purpose the lady from Guilford representative Harrison rise? To briefly debate the bill, a second time. The lady has the floor to debate the motion the second time. Thank you Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen in the house I can't really imagine like representative Carney and Martin making a case to vote red and sustaining the governor's meter but I did want to clarify a point about the process. It's my recollection, this was pre-crossover, straight from committee to the floor. There wasn't a lot of time for those of us who weren't on the committee to have some input into the formation of this bill. When the bill was in the senate, Senator Stan, the amendment that representative Bores referenced would have made it a permanent defense if an employee discovered and disclosed the illegal activity and they wouldn't have become so great to the funds in the bill, and that amendment was not allowed to be run. So clearly if that was the intention of the bill proponent, to protect workers who disclose illegal activity. They do not allow for the qualifying language to make that clear so again I urge to vote red and sustain the governor's speed. Thank you. What purpose does the gentle man from Guilford, Representative Blast rise? See if Representative Harrison will yield for a question. Does the lady from Guilford yield to the gentleman from Guilford? I yield. She yields. Representative Harrison, my Bill history that I'm getting from our website, shows that this Bill didn't came immediately to the flour from committee. That it was placed on the calendar the next day. Do you have some reason to think that this information is not correct? I stand corrected, Thank you. For what purpose does the gentle man from Cumberland, Represent Stalker rise? To debate the motion for the second time. The gentle man has the floor to debate the motion for the second time. One of the key unit I will say nothing to incite someone to hit their button. And if I do that then I might invoke the Representative Floyd rule. I just want to sum up. This has been a good debate here, but let me just go back and repeat a couple of things that I said. The intent of the bill was good, we all agreed on that. The Governor agrees on that. The need for the bill, we all agreed on that, at least 99 of us did here and the Governor agrees with the need for this bill, is to protect our businesses. There is not a lying assumption going on here, I may have lead to this misunderstanding and if I do, I apologize for that. There's no lying assumption that somehow I admitted that there is something fatally flawed in the bill that we have to go back and correct in another bill in our technical corrections, I didn't say that. What I said was that I'm willing to work with anyone and everyone as are the rest to the sponsors of this bill and the companion bill on the senate, to address the one very narrow issue that is being debated we have heard hypotheticals, so many hypotheticals that I don't want to hear anymore. Frankly because I think it's a technique that when you don't like something you can always come up with a hypothetical to say. But in this one circumstance what happens? Well, sometimes there is no answer for that. I will gladly admit that, I'm not a trained attorney, and I am unskilled at the final points of debating. But I didn't say that there is major flaws in the bill. What I said was, to address the concerns of those members of the house and anybody else who has concerns, that I and the other sponsors will be willing to look at that and give another look, and if it is determined that we can make it better by some minor technical correction or putting up sentence in another bill that's coming up, that we're more than willing to do that. And I pledge to you that I will do that, I can't guarantee you what the senate will do with it, but I can guarantee you that the sponsors of the senate companion Bill to this they told me that they're willing to do that, that they fully support that action. So, once again, here we are, we have two choices we can vote to override the veto or we can vote to sustain the veto, I think it's a good Bill, I think it's needed, I think it's needed now, and I ask that you vote green. Further discussion, further debate, if not, the question for the House is, the motion that House Bill 405 become well not withstanding the objections of the Governor. Those in favor of the motion will vote aye those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Clerk will lock the machine will record the vote.

79 having voted in the affirmative and 36 in the negative, the motion is adopted. Senate will be so notified by a special messenger. Senate Bill 315, the clerk will read. Senator Pate, Timer[sp?] [xx] Senate bill 315 the bill pate to authorize its local boards of education to make outdoor school property available to the public of recreational purposes and to make other conforming changes. Do you Understand the next for what purpose does the gentleman from Pate Representative Brown rise? To debate the bill gentleman has the floor to debate the bill members this actually is a much simpler bill than what we just talked about. This is just allowing organizations and groups to be able to use the outdoor recreation spaces, schools at the discretion of the local boards of education and this is a may, local boards may be able to use this, not a shall, it's not invoking them to automatically allow them to do this, this is allowing them to do what if they chose to, and I just urge you to support this bill, it's a good bill. discussion for further debate, if not, the question before the House is the passage. Senate bill 315 on its second reading those in favor will vote Aye, those who oppose will vote No, the Clerk will open the the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine to record the vote. 116 having voted affirmation and none in the negative. Senate Bill 315 passes its second reading and will without an object be read a third time. [xx] next for further debate, if not, the question before the House is the passage. Senate Bill 315 on its third reading. Those in favor will say Aye Aye  Those opposed will the say No. The Ayes have it. Senate bill 315 passes its third reading. It's ordered in road[sp?] and sent to the Governor. Senate Bill 333, the Clerk will read.  Senate through check. Senate Bill 333, a bill to be entitled and to require that the state board patient include specific data on its annual report on the teaching profession, general assembly of North Carolina enact For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] Representative Jones rise? For motion. Gentleman is recognized for motion. Thank you Mr. Chair, I move that we concur with Senate bill 333, senate bill 320. The gentleman is recognized for a motion, the gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker, SB 333 requires the State Board of Education to include specific data in its annual report on the teaching profession. It was a non-controversial bill in the Senate it passed unanimously 50 nothing and we had a good committee discussion. Representative Jones, I believe the Chair is actually on the debate 2nd Reading. The Chair erroneously recognized the motion conquer this is just a second reading just to set the record straight, the gentleman has the floor to debate the bill on second reading, My apology Mr. Speaker my mistake thank you seeing SB 333 passed the Senate 50-0, it passed through our committee almost unanimously on a voice vote, it seemed to be a pretty non-controversial I will just say that it is requirement for the State Board of Education to include specific data on its annual report about the teaching profession. That data would include, for instance, the number of teachers who left the profession without remaining in the field of education and the reasons why they're not remaining. It would include the number of teachers who left the profession to teach in other states. It would include the number of teachers who left their employment to work in another school in North Carolina including non public and charter schools. It would include the number of teachers who left a classroom position for another type of educational position. It would include the number of hard to staff schools. It would include the number of positions in hard to staff subject areas, and so forth. And so ladies and gentlemen, I would ask for your support for this bill. For what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg, Representative Cotham rise? Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To debate the Senate Bill. The lady has the floor to debate the bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker and I did object to this yesterday and pose some questions in the committee that just simply could not be answered in the time frame those questions have been answered I was planning to run an amendment but I received the information and thank you Mr. Speaker and Representative Jones for allowing that time and I think everything is good to go I'll support the bill. Further discussion, further debate, if

not the question before for the house is the passage of Senate Bill 333 on its second reading those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. Representative Adams does the gentleman wish to record? The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 114 having voted in the affirmative and two in the negative, Senate Bill 333 passes its second reading and will without objection be read a third time General assembly of North Carolina enacts. Further discussion, further debate if not the question before the house is the passage of Senate Bill 333 on its third reading. Those is favor will say aye, Aye! Those opposed will say the ayes have it, Senate Bill 333 passes its third reading, and is order returned to the senate. Members on a motion of Representative Pittman of Cabarrus County the chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the galley to Mr. Hassan[sp?] [xx] who is candidate for the GOP Chairman of North Carolina and Daniel Rufty[sp?] who is chairman of the 12th District Republican Party. Would you please stand so we could welcome you with us today. Thank you for being here. For what purpose does the gentleman from Representative [xx] rise? Sorry Mr. Speaker I didn't get tea in time, they step to have to get a bite to eat hopefully they'll be back in a little bit House Bill 909 the clerk will read. Representative Hager, [xx] House bill 909 to be entitled [xx] to make all these changes to the Alcohol and Beverage Control Commission Laws, General Assembly of North Carolina enact. The gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager is recognized for a motion thank you Mr. Speaker I move to concur with House Bill 909. Does the gentleman wish to debate the motion? I do, thank you Mr. Speaker, The gentleman is recognized to debate Ladies and gentlemen, four provisions of this bill were sent over originally as the anti-liquor bill most of you remember, we had a little bit debate on that what the senate has done is taken the bills that we have passed over four of which are in here of the eight provisions has passed the house, the other four provisions I can cover with the help of my colleagues Representative McGrady and Representative Bill, section one is the provision that passed here was the original Spirits Liquor Bill, the Antique Liqueur Bill which passed the house, section two is alcohol piece that had passed here and went to the senate, section three is what was known as [xx] west [xx] bill, Liqueur Bill that has passed the house and moves on to the senate, section four is the bill that the Representative Bill and I had that got included in the senate that's known as Distilleries Bill which will allow the distilleries across North Carolina to sail one bottle per person in a years time to anybody that takes a tour of that distillery. The bottle is the same bottle as you would find in your local ABC Store, is just gives the inability to take that and sell that to distillers recommended bottle. Section five is known as the Growler Bill, I think that's Representative McGrady's specialty and if it's okay Mr. Speaker we recognize someone I'm done if that's the problem with you. Section six is the is the alternate proprietorship bill, and that is in a proprietorship arrangement in which two or more people take turns using the physical premise of a brewery basically I would rent a spot if I didn't have enough money to have a brewery for beer that I would rent a spot in a other big brewery that had some space for me. Some of the what data centers are going to. Section seven is a [xx] [xx] more beverages to [xx] that's a contract arranged between someone that basically [xx] a beer for another facility. And with that Mr. Speaker I would like to recognize Representative McGrady and in six section, Representative Bill for sections eight. What purpose does the gentle man from [XX]? To speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. As Representative Hagar she tested Section Five of the bill relates to [xx] the provision that is in this Bill is exactly the provisions that we passed overwhelmingly and came out committee before. It's intention is to provide for outsider to be served [xx] hours but at the suggestion of

the ABC commission they treat hard cider as an unfortified wine and therefore, in fact it covers both hard cider and wine. Which to my surprise, I've learnt they're now selling wine and Grualas too. So the unintended but apparently positive context here is it will take care of next years bill by passing this provision. Thank your Mr Speaker What purpose does the from Wayne, Representative Bell rise?   You turned on my light. Speak on the bill Mr. Speaker. The gentleman has the floor to speak to the bill. I believe the gentleman needs to check with the seat mate. Anyway section 8 would allow the selling of alcohol. I guess the easiest way to describe it would be, if you ever went to the hotels and going into these establishments where they have the locked bars for refrigerators, you would allow someone golf courses in the state to be able to do that, a lot of these golf courses are considered destination places, for example we have NHC in my area and Cutter Creek. Folks come in, they're staying the weekend, staying for a number of days, it would allow them to open that box and purchase the alcoholic beverages et cetera, snacks and so on, so to do that, and just to allow that it benefits, I say a hand full of golf courses here in the State. For what purpose does the gentleman from Edgecombe, Representative Willingham rise? Speak on the bill. The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. Currently right now in North Carolina only ABC boards[sp?] can sell liquor at retail. Once we have distilleries authorized to sell liquor at retail. Then the possibility becomes if I'm a retailer selling beer and wine, why can't I sell liquor also? It opens up that door. if this bill becomes law distilleries are likely to seek expanded sales authority, and I don't blame them. And what this does, right now to sell alcohol it has to be a local option. Voters have to approve, give the authorization free the boys to sell liquor at retail, of course this won't happen in this bill. The other thing too is that, one of the things that ABC, that C stands for control. The distilleries are not experienced with retail sales of alcohol. A distillery is a different sales environment than a retail location, like how liquor stores are, and liquor is not the same product as beer and wine. You can't put them in the same category no matter how you can talk about it, but they are different, and that's why we have these unique set of laws that govern the way we handle alcohol in North Carolina. Now, let me hasten to say that ABC boards certainly support the stores as a matter of fact even in old ladies these stores, there's a section that carries nothing but the North Carolina products and of course they also put with other products in the store. So if I'm to believe that this bill, as someone said is an economical development bill, it's going to produce a whole bunch of jobs and will have all these expansion with stores that's not going to happen so, I think that's the miss normal. Let's look at what is happened. Here in the house we sent four bills over to the Senate. We got back eight. They took four bills that we have not debated, have not seen and added to four bills that we sent over, they were good bills. I think that for us to concur on this I think we'll be making a bad decision as a leads to policy as we deal with alcohol in North Carolina. Because what it does, it opens up the possibility of doing something that we don't want as a state and that is having at a

look of it so, and a lot of different locations other than liquor stalls and as I said in the beginning, if I'm a retailer and the [xx] have retail licence to sell liquor then I should have license to sell liquor and again I must say I don't blame people for trying to make that happen, and this is bad for North Carolina. system that we have it works because what we're talking about is consumption and profit. Now, North Carolina ranks 43rd lowest in consumption, and North Carolina rank six highest in revenue so, that means that this thing really works. So, why mess with something that's working? Or possibility to damage something that we have this good. Now we just have to remember North Carolina has controlled the sale of, alcohol since probation. So what we're doing here, we're going up slippery slope and we know obviously here when we come up we say we got a bill or amendment of something we say this is very simple in a simple bill what happens? It becomes very complicated we were just looking at this bill with all these things in it. It looks like its good, now I can live with everything in the bill except the sale of alcohol by distilleries, and I think if we choose not to concur, which I would recommend, I think we can fix that in conference. There's a way that we can allow distilleries to get alcohol to their guests or their people who are touring. We can do that, we can fix that. So, I would ask you to think very carefully about your vote on this because we are on a slippery slope, and I will just give this analogy that was given to me in a committee meeting. If you have a crack in your windshield, what happens? It might stay there for a while, but it gets longer,  bigger and at some point you're going to have to do something different. And this is what's happening with this bill if we pass or if we accept this, this is what happens when we allow distilleries to sell liquor. That's a crack, and at some point, some point down the line there's going to be a crack from other retailers to sell liquor. So I ask you to not concur on this bill, thank you. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam rise? To speak on the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. To understand my debate, if you'll look at the last page of the bill, your Rule Book and your Constitution. I agree with Representative Willingham there that we should not vote to concur, so that we can then vote to not concur a point[sp?] [xx] agree to the good stuff and throw out the bad stuff. I would like to address Section 8, which is on the last page of the bill. When Speaker Hackney took over from Speaker Black, he introduced several reforms to clean the place up. One of the reforms was that the rule 43 amendments, first paragraph, last sentence. No amendment that is clearly unconstitutional shall be I order and as a result of that been several years since we've had a local liquor bill which is forbidden by the constitution pass. But we have a lot in many years passed under black and Ramsey and some others, but we haven't hit that many recently, unfortunately this is't a point of order because this unconstitutional local bill is in the bill itself it's to on the amendment. article two, section 24 of our constitution, prohibited to general assembly should not enact any local, private or special act of resolution J regulating trade, in the state supreme court has held many times that the sale liquor is trade, and they've held many times that just calling something a public doesn't make it a public bill when in fact it's a local bill and this is a local bill, you can see on the back last page. Just reading it you can

tell, it's a place where there's an 18-hole golf course, it doesn't apply if it's a 9-hole golf course or 27-hole golf course, which holds a mixed beverage permit, located in a county where ABC[sp?] stores have hereto before been established, but in which the sale of mixed beverages have not been approved. Two, having management contracts for the rental of living units, and three, in counties with population excess by 20, 000 people by the last Federal Census. So, I don't even know which county this is, but it's obviously designed for somebody! And in court, Swain County if anybody is from Swain they can testify that their little local bill got thrown out in court about 8 years ago. Anybody from Lumberton? You can testify that that little local bill got thrown out in court about 10 years ago. Anybody from Haverfax[sp?] can testify that their little local bill disguised as a public bill was thrown out in court about 10 or 12 years ago. Speaker For what purpose does the lady from Banker Representative Fisher rise? To see if the gentleman from Lake would answer a question. Does the gentleman from Lake  yield to the lady from Banker?  Yes. Healed. Thank you. Representative Sam, we're talking about mixed drinks in this section 8 and I'm wondering if you have in a locked minibar seen a mixed drink. I think they don't come mixed and this is where mixed drinks are prohibited correct? I don't drink  does the lady wish to ask an additional question?  Yes please. Does the gentleman yield to the second question?  I don't know the difference. He yields to the question can you imagine from having maybe heard from others tell your a story about that That in a minibar, not that I've ever, but in a minibar they don't generally sell mixed drinks, they sell them as individual liquors and the county is talking about prohibiting mixed drinks. Is that something that kind of goes counter to the argument that you are making of not? I don't think so okay but I have to tell you at my 30th high school reunion my wife count go, so I took my daughter and their it was a private christian school and we had a banquet up in New Jersey and they had these pictures I though it was apple juice, took a big swig It was this nasty old bear, anyway I would just ask you to not vote to conquer so we can get this constitutional section out of the bill, the chair would remind the speaker protem[sp?] to keep his comments relevant to the bill. Miss Speaker, For what purpose does the gentleman from Ruthefat[sp?] Representative Representative Hager rise? See if the speaker pro team would yield for a question. Does the gentleman from Wake yield to the gentleman from [xx] I do. He yields. And I apologize Representative Stam I may not have understood what you're saying but if I'm reading, I'm reading cliff note the bill here, and it says the guest room cabinet premium may be issued for any of the following, so you can meet any of the single criteria you don't have to meet all of the criteria which will make me think that it's not designed it's not unconstitutional because you can meet any of the criteria, any single criteria, any two other criteria all the criteria is not, particulary all the criteria applys. Does that make sense Representative [**]?  The last page line five says and, so there are four criteria all of which have to be met I guess my copy say. Does the gentleman wish to propose a second section? And does the gentleman from Wake yield the second question. I'll yield to find all the answers. We may be speaking let me look at it real good, you know what you got more For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Pilton rise? To speak on the bill Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion I served as chairman of the White county Alcoholic Beverage Control Board and gotten a message earlier in the day that every single, one of your local ABC system whether it's city or county system, 100% would like us to not concur on this I just want to pass that over people back home feel about this for moral reasons and religious reasons, I just don't want any more liquor outlets.

Thank you For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenburg representative Jeter rise? To debate the motion   The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion I got some more stats, I did a little research as I understand we are talking about the sale of one corded bottle of alcohol for the most part in conjunction with something that can be sold in ABC store. I assume we're talking about this because we are risking all the problems that go along with alcoholism, the death, the disease and everything like that we don't want to spread that. I assume, my assumption, I know what we shouldn't do so I looked it up. Alcohol and alcohol related diseases in the United States cause 29, 001 deaths per year according to the CDC. Diabetes causes 75, 578 deaths per year. So I assume our next bill would be banning Crispy Crepe from selling donuts at the shop. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wayne, Representative Bale rise? Speak on the motion. Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion a second time. Ladies and gentlemen and representative officials, I wish you would ask me, because I happen to admit that I actually [xx] one of these liquor bars one time so maybe expert in the place. But to your point you are exactly correct, you are on [xx], you can't go up to the bar, you can't go up to the mini fridge and say I want a mixture will actually, it will be just like you do at the ABC Store. I kind of look at it like as if you've been playing golf all day at one of this locations and you have to per take, do you want this person to get on the road you go to the ABC Store to have this afternoon drink or [xx] drink and I would say that in a controlled environment, we'll want these people to stay on the property and enjoy semselves spend money which generate tax revenue and move forward and enjoy their time. I've been working on this bill for actually a number of years, I myself for many other representative session interview in here we've had discussion on this. And when you look at what we are doing with the distilaries, we can get real passion on this this issue because it has to do with alcohol. If this was doing with anything besides the alcohol, it really wouldn't a big issue. But the fact is that we have opportunity. And now many times you come into this building when you have an opportunity to start an industry. You're actually at a point of pressing this green button a diverge of unleashing an industry here in the state of North Carolina. Folks I came here because my constituents sent me here to bring jobs to eastern North Carolina. Every job is [xx] and house district team is a win for eastern North Carolina. I have a distillery called Cavington in Greene County, this would allow them to sell their product after they get at the [xx] and do a tour and see what they're doing with sweet potatoes. I have another community, that two of in us here represent, called Kingston North Carolina. If you see what they're doing with down town Kingston, you will be amazed. Now there's another opportunity for them to come and spend money and stay overnight at any of our restaurants when it comes to the new distillery at Mother Earth Brewing Company. This is our opportunity. It's about growing our local agriculture products, put them forth and foremost in the ABC store but also allowing people to spend their tourism dollars to come into our locations, take a tour facility, which by the way you can tour and taste on a [xx] right now but you can't buy now how would you feel if you walked into a store, you were able to feel the product, [xx] on the product and [xx] you had to drive 30 minuted 40 minutes or two blocks to go buy the product. Chances are we will lose out our revenue. I was very interesting to hear the sales of the six hours in the state and see our state is six high [xx] stills in the country, I say with this bill we may even be number one in a couple of years, because we're unleashing a new industry ladies and gentlemen this is the Economic Development Bill, this is not about privatization, this is about economic development and jobs for our community if you listen to the committee that went on, I heard the Scott [xx] top of the hill saying if this bill passes, I'll double the employees in my business. Think about that I urge you to concur For what purpose does the gentleman from Ash represent Jordan rise? Debate the motion. Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. ABC omnibus, and it is certainly an omnibus. We sent four bills to the Senate get back eigth wish we had that rate of return on a lot of our economic development projects don't you? I'm not thrilled about this bill for lots of different reasons and I think all of my colleagues have spoken against it, I agree with all of your points, but the gentleman from Edgecombe, gentleman from Wake, they would think that I'm really thrilled about here and part of that you got to understand is I'm one of the sponsors of the ignition interlock bills.

Driving is a serious, serious issue in the state. The only one I'm thrilled about in this omnibus is section two which says no powered alcohol because I can just imagine little packets of powdery alcohol going to school everyday, showing up at lots of places, so I'm glad that was there I'm glad when that passed and was sent over there but I think it was a separate bill, there was some shenanigans going on about some administrative law issues in there that we took care of, but I wish that was separate from all the rest of this stuff and I know I lost on none of these other parts of it here in the house and that's fine, but they were separate that would be something different. I think this is a mishmash, and I do use the word mash deliberately being from near Wilkes County and they're having grown up in Winston asylum where tobacco industry was pretty big because we're creating a new industry. So I would say we need to just immediately vote this down, and then vote no to Concur and then put it to a congress and see if we'll get something good out of this mess. Thank you For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager rise? Debate the bill the second time. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion second time. Thank you. Well in all the talk I've never even heard that folks know what we heard in committee day that the ABC the commission is neutral on all these, they do like the power alcohol but they said they're neutral on everything else, they don't like it they don't dislike it. So don't let folks fool you guys they're neutral we've heard a little bit about how drunk driving is bad in North Carolina it is, that's a bad thing, but you realize 30 other states are better drunk driving ratio by drunk drivers than we do. 30 other states, a lot of them are uncontrolled states. [xx] about the [xx] that seems to be a big issue and [xx] county it about 30 to 40 minutes away from ABC store, you go to still take tour you are not go go to the ABC store if you from there it's not going to happen. We've heard a lot of how this is a mismatch I believe it's what representative Jordan said the bill is from the senate. Six of the eight bill that are in these came out of the house. Four passed here, two couldn't be heard in ABCs they hadn't been heard in any committee, the senate picked them up, put them in the bill, so 6/8, whatever percentage that is. 75% is from the house bills, so there's only two things we didn't take up is the bill to run his face in the brewery and have co-location of breweries, that's the only thing we didn't have that came out of the house, so all the Red rick ad all the came out and I think representative Bill is exactly right. The growth of jobs in my district, not long ago until we were talking about we don't have wineries in North Carolina, why don't we have wineries in North Carolina? Has several in his different county whines, I think the sign for, I've a couple in my district, we're also proud of our wineries now. I think representative Bill talked about that in the committee just a few years ago I think we've approved a couple of bill for craft rules. I've bee in Ashful area, look at what that industry has gotten now. We didn't' have ash four, five, six years ago. jobs they employ right now. So, we are [xx] with this new, I believe this new employment area, this new industry and just because what some folks don't like, they don't like the jobs. I'll just ask you to vote green. Let's help create this industry, let's help create commerce and put people back to work Further discussion further debate, if not, the question for the house is the motion to conquer with the senate of committee of the House Bill 909 those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no, the clerk will open the vote clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 72 having voted in the affirmative, and 44 in the negative the motion conquers passes on it's second reading and it will remain Calendar for third reading more. House bill 465 the clerk will read Representative Schafer and [xx], [xx] martin, House bill 465 the bill to be entitled at to enact the woman and the children's protection act for 2015, the general assembly of North Carolinian act. For what purpose does the lady Mecklenburg Representative Shaffer rise? For a motion Lady is recognized to state a motion Thank you Mr. Speaker I move that the house do now concur with the senate changes to House Bill 465 the lady has moved that the House do concur with the Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 465, the lady has the forward to debate the motion.

Thank you Mr. Speaker ladies and gentlemen, I want to take you through some of the changes that the Senate has put in, our House Bill 465, there is a lot of a lot of great minds that were looking at this particular Bill and what came out of the Senate was a really an attempt to strengthen some of our, in addition to some of the laws that we've put, the provisions that we've put, in the original Bill they have added in some provisions regarding some criminal law protections as well some family law issues, though I do want to take you through those briefly then we can discuss any those if anyone has any questions, but, kind of that there's criminal law as well as human law provisions. One of the changes that the Senate made was to define statutory rape as engaging in a sexual act with the person who's 15 years old, or younger, our current law simply says the act has to be with a 13, 14 or 15 year old who you want to understand if that happens for individuals under 13 if that still is statutory rape. An additional change have to do with making time administrative changes that will improve the action and payment for child support to our families when really holding individuals accountable who are responsible to be making these payments, this would strengthen the ability for those payments to be made. I just know we have the bill  would prevent the electronic filing of documents in chapter 50B and 50C cases under the local rules approved by AAC or under anything, any uniform state rules adapted by the Supreme Court. And next we have the bill would make it an aggravating sentencing factor to knowingly committing an offence that is seen or heard by a minor who is not an accomplice to the offence and specifically and there has been some clarifying language that an assault that is committed quote, in a presence of a minor, occurs when the minor can see or hear the assault. Additionally we have permits the court to impose conditions of pre-trial release in domestic violence cases to protect individuals that the defendant is dating or has dated, and then finally on this kind of section we have an important loop hole that we've closed here in our sex offender statute. What it will do is that it requires registered sex offenders to stay away from premises frequented by minors if they had committed federal crimes or crimes in other states that are substantially similar to our own criminal statutes in North Carolina dealing with sex offences. Moving on to some of the other provisions that the Senate added in is the creation of Maternal Mortality Review Committee in DHHS, to study and recommend ways to prevent death that result from complications of pregnancy in child birth. Additionally, there's a requirement that physicians who perform abortions other than other medical emergency, the famous report certified of survival in a obstetrics or gynecology an important amendment occurs on the Senate floor on Monday night, that was they added in that physicians who possess sufficient training based on established medical standards and safe abortion care, abortion complications and miscourage management are also authorised to perform abortions so taking into some of the concern for some other rural counties you may not have some these individuals present, and I believe that that amendment passed almost anonymously on the Senate floor. Almost nearing the end we have a requiring annual inspection by DHHS to the clinics where abortions are performed and publication of the results of those that inspections that happen, that occur on or after January 1, 2013, that they have to be published on the DHHS website as well as the Woman's Right to Know Act Website. another important provision and a lot us have discussed has to do with prohibiting clinic some employee this abortion clinics from employing individuals under the age of 18 one another important amendement that the Senate made on the floor on Monday night, had to deal with certain hospitals that they were concerned that they were going to get looped in into some of these restrictions, so what they did is that they mended up that particular inspection requirement to clarify the hospital's license Chapter 131E of the General Statutes, and that they are exempt. Those are the changes that occurred in the Senate Bill, as you can see that there're a lot of great great provisions to strengthen our criminal law provision. Our family law provisions, the new title of the bill is women and children s protection act 2015 and that really is what it is, I'm really protecting our women and children. So, I would urge the members to vote to conqueror on the changes to House Bill 465 thank you. Representative Fisher is recognize. Thank you Mr Speaker to debate the motion to concur. You're recognized. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen all I can say is wow. My colleague on the floor Representative Jordan just referred to a bill that went over as one and came back as eight, but I think this one went over as one and came back as nine, possibly I have lost count, but

on many of the items that were added to this bill in the senate you might have found that this entire body could have voted in favor of them had you given them a chance to be distinct and separately considered bills but as it stands with the other pieces that are in this bill for example a 72 hour waiting period for women who do not need the legislature of North Carolina dictating to them how to care for their bodies or to seek reproductive care for themselves, and with the idea that the records that are confidential between women and her physician are supposed to be then turned over to the state, those who think that I can not get along with to me adding these extra provisions to a bill that went over one away and comes back entirely different is the worst kind of cynical politics and I urge the body not to conquer. Thank you. Representative Mitchell is recognized? To speak on the motion and to make a motion you're recognized to speak on the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House this is the senate is back at it again what they're doing is really making campaign fodder[sp?] out of this bill because now if you vote against this bill, they're going to use it everything that many of us had stood for for so long has forced us to vote against this bill anything dealing with domestic violence anything dealing with children, anything dealing, all of that, they added in here as sweetness to try to get you to support this Bill. And Mr. Speaker as I looked at this I would like at this point to move on the chapter 32, sections 310 and 316 of mansions[sp?] manual a motion to divide sections one through six of this bill to mean that they do stand alone we'll consult with the clerk. The house will come to order. The chair may better step out of the chamber for a few minutes next time. Speaker pottium the galla for 10 minutes ad what happens. Time review of section 312 it does appear that the gentleman is in order to make a motion, which I believe the gentleman from Durham is making that the question be divided, and I believe has moved that sections one through six which I guess would include section 6B. I want to make sure I have the gentleman's motion correct, which is on page nine line six. The Gentleman's moving that that section of the bill section, I guess the first eight pages all the way to section 6B of page 9B in one vote and that the remainder of the bill with section seven all the way to end be in a separate vote. Is that the gentleman's motion? That's correct Mr. Speaker. Okay. The Gentleman has made his motion. The chair will permit the gentleman to debate the motion if he wishes. I don't wish to debate. Okay. Is there any debate on the motion to divide the question. The chair sees lights from Representative's Glazier and Cunningham members are just pushing to debate the bill. Does the Gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke wish to debate the motion? The Gentleman from Durham Representative Luebke has the floor to debate the motion Mr. Speaker, members of the House, Representative Machaux has made clear the importance of the division simply to take two separate bills as a senate just took this completely separate topics, put them in to one bill. We ought to be able to do better in the house, we ought to be bale to do better in the house acknowledge the correctness of the Michaux motion and all of us regardless of party recognize and regardless of where we stand on this bills, merge together in to one bill. We ought to support the Michaux

motion, I urge people to do so For what purpose does the gentleman from [xx] represent the Luis? To debate the motion.  The gentleman has the floor to debate a motion. Mr. Speaker and members, the gentleman from Durham is right in making the request, and I think it is certainly worthy of note that the Speaker is allowing this question to be considered. However, I rise to ask the members to defeat the gentleman's request to the certainly the best of my knowledge and as much as I can tell from asking those who've been here even longer than I have a motion to divide, well it is the gentleman is correct Durham, it is in Miessence rules has never been done before. This house by president has never allowed this to go on before. The standard practice that we have observed for as long as anyone can recall is that the motion to conqueror is on the bill as a whole. Therefore, while I commend the gentleman for his sharp and good knowledge for both procedure and I commend the speaker for allowing this open debate to occur, our special request that the members defeat the motion to divide the concurrence vote, thank you Mr. Speaker. Further discussion on the debate. Mr. Speaker. For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Mitchell rise? I do wish to speak on the motion now. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Mr. Speaker and ladies and gentlemen in the House handling this a long time ago, this has been done and requested before, it's been denied once and I think granted once, and you really don't have to put this to a vote, the speaker can make the decision on it, but, let me tell you what when I started at, before I read the motion, I suggested to you that you want to take a close look at what has been added by the Senate to House Bill that was passed, and what they had added in order to sweeten the pot, trying to get everybody to vote on this Bill added all these good items in there, every one of those items from section one through six items, that should be voted on separately because they deal with statutory rape, they deal with how you handle child matters, domestic violence matters, all of these are items that should be voted on separately. And that's all that I'm asking though with this motion, is to pull those things I vote on those I do separately, and then all are actually being voted on separately and vote your conscious on the way want to go. Now, and it's to vote for concurrence, you would vote to concur on one through six, and you vote to concur or not to concur one through six, you can vote to concur or not concur on seven through eight, it's just that simple. And I would suggest to you that on this that you vote to allow this to go through. That and then when you do on this that you vote for concurrence on items, not suggestion. You vote for items one through six, and vote as you wish on sections seven and eight. That's all. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake Representative Stan rise? To speak on the motion The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Mr. Spaeker, members of the house, innovation is not bad but we certainly haven't ever done this since 1989, and if something happened before then, maybe Representative [xx] knows about it. The folks who want to vote for sections one to six but not the rest of the bill have a remedy, they can take credit even if they vote against it, I work for years to re-appeal the gift tax, and finally when speaker Hadney put that in the budget I had to vote against it, my won bill. But I took credit for it and nobody knew the difference. The real remedy if they do not like parts of the bill is just what we

did on 909 that is vote not concur, and then you get a conference report of the good parts and the bad parts. I ask you to vote no on this motion to for what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford representative Hager rise? To debate the motion. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'm not sure how many guys were in the senate when they discussed ad debated this bill that we're sending from the house now, but I was. I sat there and listen to debate, I sat there and listen to the amendments, and that was it, they didn't take this part and debate it separately outside the bill, maybe take this part and debate it outside the bill, it was all as a part of a debated the bill it was included in the bill, it was all meant to stay together. It wasn't separate issues, it wasn't that these issues stood alone from other issues, it was all put together, it was all debated together, it was all agreed on altogether just like we do in this chamber. So as we debate bills here, we had things too, we learn things as we learnt through the debate and therefore we make amendments, we make motions. We do things to make the bill better. I think the bill is better ad I think it will all be voted on as a whole. So p[lease vote down this motion For what purpose does the Gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall rise? Speak on the motion. Gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. Thank you Mr. Speaker when fellow members that wanted to just take you back for a minute. I heard speaker pro tempore stand say that this is something new, and maybe we shouldn't do it just because it's something new and then I thought about that well, this guys were on a sand dune, and someone might have don take a chance because you cant fly because you could make history, because you could do something improve don't do that because it's be the first time it's done so don't do it here we have something that's within our rules and admittedly it has been done before, has been done recently, we've had a class this morning or today about parliamentary procedure and what our rights are. This is in our rules, we can do this and this it restores this bill more toward what the initial intentions were when they went to the Senate, these other items that are unrelated got put on this bill. They could have been voted out separately out of the Senate, but they were not. We could hold true to what we sent to the Senate and vote on that part, and then have an active voice on voting on the other portions of the bill as would have been the preferred method. So I'd ask you to support this motion and let's divide this bill, vote on it true to what our intent was, and then vote on the other portions that have been added. Thank you. Representatives Glazier and Cunningham, the members have their lights on to the debate the substance of the bill not the motion, is that correct? OK. For what purpose does the gentleman from Harnett? Seeing no further discussion or debate, the question before the House is the motion of Representative Michaux that the question be divided on the Senate Committee Substitute for House 465 on the motion to concur. Those in favor will vote Aye, those who opposed will vote NO, the Clerk will open the vote. the clerk will lock  machine recorded the vote. 47 having voted on the affirmative, and 68 in the negative the motion fails. Members, the chair has further reviewed this, and the chair would believe frankly that in the future should such a motion be made on the concur that the motion will be ruled out of order, and basis for the chair decision is very simple in the nature of  a concurrent vote, and as the discussion was on going the chair was thinking through this. The motion is still to concur with the bill the house agrees with the senate of the bill or not conquer which means the house does not agree with this senate bill. There is no mechanism where by we can effectively agree with part of the bill and not agree with part of the bill. If the half does not choose to agree with the bill then part correct motion via emotion not to concure in their case, so the chair is going to allow the vote, but in future if such a motion is made it would be ruled out of order. for what purpose does the lady from Mecklenburg Representative Cunningham rise? To speak on the bill for concurrence. Lady has the floor to debate the motion Thank you Mr Speaker as I looked at the new bill that arrived from this senate, I noticed the title and it says women and children protection act of 2015 and I said is that right?

Because when you start talking about domestic violence is the state of North Carolina 42% are men, and there is a lot of domestic violence inside of the bill and to me, both of those issues are so huge that they could stand alone. UNCC did a report last year and did a study. In Mecklenburg county alone there were 35, 000 calls to the domestic violence for the police and there were 15, 000 calls logged with the domestic violence coalition. the four top county in the state of North Carolina they has the highest domestic violence, Guilford county, Wake county, Mecklenburg and Durham county, but more often when we start talking about domestic violence I feel no justice, no justice in this chamber to have domestic violence stuck inside of another bill because to me as a woman and some men that are suffering domestic violence across the state and losing their lives, losing their lives. Domestic bowers deserves it's own space. It deserves it's own space, whether you agree with me or not It is just one of those items, that causes the burning, of my soul that we're not addressing in the state of North Carolina to the fullest capacity, that it needs to be addressed. Lives are lost everyday. One to three lives are lost everyday. So, I do like the domestic violence best included in the bill. But I think it deserves more of a validity by us in this state house. I have to concur, thank you. Representative Glazier is recognized. Thank you Mr. Speaker, to speak to the motion. You're recognized. Thank you. Members first and not for nothing, when this bill was in the Senate the other day and the Senate did its bit and switch take a look with me at section one, since we've decided to keep it in the bill. Section one was intended to for a good purpose, to remove the procedure of pardon for victims of sexual acts, but what it also does if you look is to expose younger alleged defendants to be charged with a statutory sex offense. Currently an alleged defendant must be at least 12 to be charged with that kind of offense, you can take a look at 27.2 and 1427.4, but the new language the Senate inserted now allows children as young as 6 to be charged with the statutory sex offense. Well that's what happens when that process takes place and no one gets to that provisions that they added. So you're now voting just so you know to allow felony sex offenses to be charged against someone as young as six years of age. Second, turning to the remainder of the bill which was the real bill and not part of the sham bill that the Senate passed, the 72 hour provision, we've argued about that before and so I'll keep my comments brief. At a special retailing once again as the absence of any statement of legislative findings the legislative record on that issue, I remind you all contains no documentational evidence, no studies or surveys no academic analysis, not even anything as an [xx] simple expert report not in the house which we stated on the floor as a reason to oppose it when the house passed, and the senate had a chance to document the record but the senate refused to, and then not again in the house today, just for the record, every bit of existing medical evidence had been cleared for decades. Delays of any toward obtaining an abortion whether administrative, legal, financial, or logistical have the same effect is, thatis they increase the rate benefit to the woman, point of fact in the most resent days is the most resent advice from the World Health Organisation, which says a provide a [**] upon request, the legislators in the house apparently know more about best medical practices than the doctors at the World Health Organization we don't know what they know outside of that because we have no record to support it. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon said falling when he bit off

the 72 hours waiting period bill out of Missouri, maintaining the already extensive waiting period serves no demonstrable purpose, other than to create emotional and financial hardships for women to have undoubtedly already spent considerable time wrestling, but perhaps the most difficult decision they will ever have to make. Expanding the mandatory waiting period presupposes that women are unable to make up their own minds without further Government intervention. This is insulting to women, particularly in light of what the law already requires. So let's at least be clear as this provision. Tripling the existing 24 hour mandatory delay to 72 hours is fundamentally under every bid of credible medical evidence medically unnecessary and it will be in the minds of most of us absolutely enjoined by a federal court. The majority here pays the kind of lip service to the value of a woman's right that is typical when apparently was about to be carelessly disregarded, and the majorities view were woman's rights to choose as an empty and hollow concept with little meaning. On this issue at least then as the 72 hours the majority tries to mask it as a woman's health issue but their bluff has been called, and the majority lays barely up here on the table. Third issue, the issue that was added on the Senate side of the gynecological provision that it at least it was amended in part. I can't sum it up any better than a Chapel Hill physician Dr. Ferrari said, you simply don't need specialized training to work with the uterus, quote on quote. Family doctors have lots of experience with taking care of women who are pregnant. They have a requirement to learn obstetrics and to learn women's health and outpatient gynecological procedures, and although Senator Van Duyn's amendment adopted by the Senate modifies that restriction sum, let's be clear again that it is added in contravention to all medical evidence not with the support of the North Carolina Medical Society, and not as a provision that's intended to aid in a woman's health, but instead truly intended to simply restrict again the supplier capacity for a woman's exercise of their right to choice. Indeed, it takes real trick by the majority to assure us that what's going on here at all has anything to do with the woman's health, or a woman's right to choose. When the record for four years in this chamber and outside it has been littered by number of members on this bill by an assault virtually all I can virtue on any woman's right to choose in most circumstances. Finally this bill is not about the interpretation of the constitution, but the creation of a new one. The majority is on a legislative quest as righteous in their mind and as pure in their mind, as it is extreme and ideological interest in mind, and nothing will stand in their way today, least of all the Constitution of the United States hardly, they'll simply crawl else where, in the back arley and dark room and places in the house floor will never dare to treed in our society. No services for the unwanted, or in some cases unloved and in others potentially impaired children that will be born due to the lack of access in the state to the poor of abortion. Don't kid yourself, wait for next week when the senate budget comes out more condoms, more contraceptive, or through family planning. Don't be ridiculous, abstinence apparently is the only game of the game in town bils files in the last four section and the provisions we passed in budgets. We probably lucky in the public that we haven't re voted [**] versus Connecticut where it was made a felony for a married couple to even purchase a condom. No one in this house floor, we love the unborn child but as for the living mother and the child she may be forced to bear, well that's a force of a different constitutional color. No longer it is a family's choice appearance choice or a woman's choice, now it's now the government's choice. [xx] was right, 1984 has arrived simply a few decades later than may be predicted. It goes without saying I oppose this bill on the motion to concur, and I guess when it passes we will have to yet again leave it to the Federal courts to clean up the elephants' constitutional mess on

the legislative's circus sawdust trail that we continue to trad on the social agenda Thank you. Representative Perison[sp?] is recognized. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the house, I debate the motion briefly. Tough to follow Representative Glazer's eloquence, but I do want to remind members that the continual interferences of this Chamber into women's reproductive rights are playing out in the worst way on the least of these, the women of less means. Those who can afford it will be able to find and seek the care that they need at the time that they need it, but the ones that can't afford it, the single mother of four who needs this service is going to have to take two days off of work to go get the service that she needs, and I just think this is unfortunate. And we do not have an exception for victims of rape or incest, so you have to live with that horror for a couple of extra days, I just think that's unconscionable. I would encourage you to vote No on the Motion to Concur. Representative Lucas is recognized. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To speak on the motion.   You're recognized. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, I stand with conflicted emotions. I don't there's anyone in this room who would not vote for the provisions in the first part of this bill they were allowed to stand alone. That would be unconscionable to vote against those, but in our zest when the senate zest I should say I don't this belongs to the house. In the Senate's zest to put the visions in this bill that would make it difficult to vote against. I don't think many of us realized that we were putting in a provision that would make a six year old a criminal. That to me is tantamount to haste making waste it reminds me of the Shakespearean play the Merchant of Venice where the villain Sherlock insisted upon a pound of flesh yes, we're willing to concede that pound - some of us are - to concede that pound of the flesh as it relates to the delay of an abortion but you know Sherlock wanted his pound of flesh but the decision came that he could get that pound of flesh but was not entitled to one ounce blood, and he was entitled to one pound, not one pound one ounce, not 15 ounces but exactly one pound. I'm reminded that that might be what we are doing here. We need to be careful how we craft legislation that's designed for specific purposes. If we're interested in human beings, as we all ought to be and I think we all are, then please look at this very carefully and if you examine this very carefully perhaps you maybe influenced to vote no. Further discussion of the debate is not the question before the house is the adoption of motions to concur in the senate committee substitute for House Bill 465. The clerk will open the vote The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. The Ayes are 71, the No's are 43. The motion is passed, the bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Notices and announcements. Special message while we're waiting for that, special message from the Senate, the Clerk will read. Mr. Speaker, it is our honor[sp?] that the message be sent to the House of Representatives with the information that the Senate has passed House Bill 405 Committee Substitute Ratifying an act to protect property owners from damages resulting from individuals acting in excess of the scope of permissible access to conduct granted to them. Notwithstanding the objection of the Governor, and the bill becomes law. Respectful Sarah Lang, Principal Clerk. Noted. We have a couple of other items of business in notices and announcements while we're putting those together. Representative Susan Martin. for an announcement. You're recognized for announcement.

Thank you Mr. Speaker, the House committee on finance will meet in the morning at 8:30 in our normal room 544, the notice has been sent out, the indexation Bills have already been but we do have a full agenda so please be on time. Thanks. Senator of greymaton[sp?] is recognised for announcement Miss Speaker I rise for parliamentary inquiry. Yes, what is your parliamentary inquiry? Thank you Mr. Speaker, I note on our calendar we do have reconsideration of vetoed Bill, Senate Bill 2. Our state constitution, article 2 section 22 that says that upon receipt of a vetoed Bill from a governor, we're required, quote, to proceed to reconsider it, end quote. My inquiry is when are we going to proceed to considerate. We'll proceed to reconsider when we proceed to reconsider. Representative Davies, you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Speaker for an announcement. Your recognized. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and Gentlemen of the house, local gomor will meet tomorrow in room 643 10:00 A. M and the bills that will be considered are on your days agenda. Thank you. Representative Larry Hall Thank you Mr. Mr. Chair parliamentary inquiry about Senate Bill 2. State your inquiry. Will we be given another advance notice of two days or more the next time this Bill is scheduled, or will it be? Know Representative Hall it will appear on the calendar tomorrow, you don't, rule 44.2 does not require an additional 2 days notice. follow up, I will come back to you Rep. Ralph Johnson Thank you Mr. Speaker I'm sorry to report that Congress Woman [xx] mother has passed and this is the seat that I currently occupy and I just want to acknowledge that to the members I think a lot of you remember her and just want you to keep her in your prayers Rep. Glazier is recognized just to note to the parliamentary inquiry to the chair, State your parliamentary inquiry Thank you this is to note my objection to the failure to reconsider the governors read of senate two in a timely imprompt manner and believe that it is inconsistent to the constitution of the state of North Carolina the clerk will note that, further notices and announcement if not Rep. Luis hold on one second be in ease for just a moment the clerk will read Representative Lewis, Rules Calendar and Operations of the House committee report, House Bill 562 second amendment information act, favorable committee substitute number three unfavorable committee substitute number two.committee Substitute number two unfavorable calendar committee substitute number three calendar. Notices and announcements. For what purpose does the lady from Surry, Representative Stevens rise? For an announcement. Lady has the floor for an announcement. In order to accommodate the House, Children, Youth and Family is going to meet at 10:00 A. M. Tomorrow, but I'm going to have to work with the Sergeant-At-Arms Office to find out exactly where we can meet, so watch your announcements because I think somebody else has the regular room we have. We have one bill, it shouldn't take long, so I hope everyone can be there at 10:00 A. M. For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd rise? Inquiry of the Chair. The gentleman may state his inquiry. Before we depart would you give us the schedule for tomorrow? I'm sorry, I can't.   Could we not get the schedule for tomorrow? We are going to reconvene reconvene tomorrow at 11AM. It appears that the committee meetings so far that have been previously noticed will be Finance at 8.30, Local Government at 10, and Children, Youth and Families has been moved from 11AM to 10. The Chair knows of no other committees unless some other committee Chairs have some other announcements. Follow up Mr. Speaker. The gentleman is recognized for a follow up. If those bills are non-controversial will there be a possibility they will come before that? I'm sorry I. If those bills are non-controversial, will we hear them tomorrow? The Chair does not intend to add any of the bills that are in Committee to the Calendar tomorrow, they will probably roll over to either Monday or Tuesday. Representatives Davis and Stevens

are recognized to send forth a committee report, the Clerk will read. Representatives Davis and Stevens, Judiciary III Committee Report, SB 488 Amend Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. -AB Favorable to House Committee Substitute, Unfavorable to Senate Committee Substitute. Senate Committee Substitute Unfavorable Calendar, House Committee Substitute Calendar. SB 83, Criminal Law Filing False Documents Favorable to House Committee Substitute Unfavorable to Senate Substitute and re-referred to Regulatory Reform. Senate Committee Substitute unfavorable Calendar, House Committee Substitute referred to the Committee on Regulatory Reform for what purpose does the Gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall rise? Thank you Mr. Speaker, question about tomorrow's calendar. Gentleman's recognize the status inquire Thank you Mr. Speaker have a bill at least scheduled that was read in for tomorrow and wanted to know what the schedule for third reading would be anticipated is the gentleman referring to 909 the past[sp?] second reading this afternoon? 542 its 562 sorry. The bill has not been placed on the March's calendar, but we'll determine when which bill gets set on the calendar after we're adjourned, there's a way this works, there's a stack of bills back there and Mr. Chair will consult with the rules Chair for tomorrow or perhaps some for next week, depending the time, Further notices and announcements? If not, the gentleman from Harnett, Representative Louis is recognized for a motion. Mr. Speaker. What purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd rise? A friendly inquiry with the chair. Yes Sir. you said that you may, you used the word, you may say bills for tomorrow They will most likely be voted tomorrow. Thank you Mr. Speaker. I understand what the gentleman was asking now. Yes. The gentleman from Harnett, Representative Louis is now recognized for a motion. Mr, Speaker, subject to re-referral of bills and resolutions, messages from the senate, I move that the house adjourned to reconvene, Thursday, June 4th at 11 O'clock a. M. 11 a. M the gentleman from Harnett, Rep. Louis, seconded by Rep. Millis, moves that the house still adjourned, to reconvene, subject to receive the messages from the senate, re-referral bills and resolutions to reconvene, June the 4th at 11 a. M. Those in favor will say, aye, those opposed no, the ayes have it we stand adjourned.