[BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Randleman did you just say, Committee submits the passage? House bill two. Public facility privacy and security act. Favorable. >> House bill two calendar. So this takes us right into our calendar, House bill two clerk will read. >> House bill two Public Facility Privacy and Security Act. Senator Newton is recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you Mr. President. Doesn't it. Thank you members. I arise to discuss this legislation that we have invoked that down to address. As we all know, unfortunately, the City of council of Charlotte lost their mind and decided to embark upon a very radical course and a new I guess you would call it an ordinates, something that they knew that they didn't have the authority to do. They didn't care. See council of Charlotte, the majority anyway, decided that they would vow to the altar of radical political correctness. And in so doing created a real public safety risk with citizens of this state that may choose to visit Charlotte or live in Charlotte, or frankly those that visit Charlotte from other places in the country. And in the state that would allow, as we've heard in the media, would allow men into the locker rooms and the bathrooms [BLANK_AUDIO] of females, of our daughters, of our wives. This policy must not be allowed to go forward, and that is why we're here today because the city of Charlotte and it's city council [BLANK_AUDIO] have decided that [BLANK_AUDIO] quite frankly that they don't care about common sense and that they are not really that concerned about the public safety of With folks that go in the bathroom and in the city of Sheraton/g. I know that sounds harsh with all these but that's the real. And candidates I will point out that the city of Sheraton/g knew. They acknowledged privately to some folks and I think they're those needing some public acknowledgement. And you think I didn't have the authority to do this. They just wanted to do it anyway. [BLANK_AUDIO] And it's important that we recognize that we live in a state of laws. We have a constitution and it is important that the state have uniform system of rules and regulations. And the common sense tells us that men don't belong in a ladies bathroom. It's a matter of code of safety and it is the ordinates that they've put forward, [BLANK_AUDIO] Anyone quite frankly with that intent could use these trial ordinates as an excuse today to be somewhere that we all know they don't belong. So [BLANK_AUDIO] If the Senate Shaw had listened to the lawyers who told them not to do it that they didn't have the authority, they'd listen to representative Bishop who represents iii a very smart attorney who sent him a letter detailing to them why this was a bad idea, they'd listen to the governor,warned them not to do it. We wouldn't be here today and frankly if the Attorney General would do his job we wouldn't be here today. Would have been easy for him to put this to a stop before we had to have a special session and frankly I just can't believe that we're here today having to talk about
this. But for the City Council of Charlotte, we would have to talk about this things. [BLANK_AUDIO] All of us have been receiving thousands and thousands of emails and letters and phone calls from our constituents begging us to solve this problem, to fix this insanity before it goes into effect and that's why we're here. So we have got a very good piece of legislation before us today that will address these issues. Many of us were in the committee that we just held, in judiciary committee we had a full explanation, we heard from the public. I think there's been quite a long explanation over in the house side in their judiciary committee and on the floor. I'll be happy to go over details for people with their questions, Since from other members that the broad aspects of this bill are that we're going to set a state wide standard for who belongs in which bathroom. We're gonna do this in public buildings across the state, we're going to do this for iii and counties, court houses, and we're gonna do these for our public schools. We're also going to make sure that it's clear that cities and counties don't have the authority to wade into the policies of questions like what should be the minimum wage? Or what should be the important practice of companies here in North Carolina. Now we do this to protect our businesses and protect our working environment. There should not be a patch work from one end of the state to the other where businesses have to have a lawyer in each community or each county try to figure out what regulation they're subject Today. And which ordinates change tomorrow. And frankly the rules on things like this should be the same in Nashville as they are in Boon, as they're in Morehead city, as they're in Gribble or in Rayleigh. [BLANK_AUDIO] And it's important for this body and for this institution the general assembly to set forth this standards. But even more important it's important for members to understand that in the course of putting this legislation together, and trying to decide how was the best way to move forward with policy of North Carolina, became clear that something was lagging that we had not taken care of here in the state of North Carolina. And Federal law is pretty clear about discrimination, and employment, and public accommodation. The State of North Carolina has never enacted a public policy on public accommodation, stating that you shouldn't discriminate against someone say based on their religion or their race, and deny them say a hotel room. We're fixing that add in this legislation. This legislation expands the public policy of this state to clarify that discriminating based on race and religion and is even stronger than the federal law, but that's not acceptable here in this state. And it's long over due, it's long over due, so those are the main highlights of what this bill does, but I urge you to join me in passing this legislation and joining the house in passing this legislation to clarify What the standards are in North Carolina to clarify that we don't need to worry about who is in the bathroom in the city of Charlotte. To clarify for the citizens that they can have confidence about who is sharing the locker room with them. It's imperative that we do this today, I appreciate your attention I commend the bill to you, and I'm happy to answer any questions thank you. >> Do we any discussion or a debate? >> Mr. President. >> Senator Blue what purpose do you rise? >> Will Senator Newton yield for a question. >> Senator Newton do you yield? >> I do. >> Senator Newton does this bill have any enforcement mechanisms in it? [BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Blue you mean as it relates to the new policy on the public accommodation.
Is that what you're referring to? >> In any aspect of it in either of the three sections of the bill, is there any enforcement mechanism? >> No. >> Not a question Mr. President. >> I yield. >> Senator you have to follow up. Perhaps you can explain to me if in fact a man goes into a woman's bathroom, what is the crime that has been committed under this Bill? >> Under existing law it would be a second degree trespass, unless there're other circumstances, like they were going in there to clean it. >> Another question, Mr. President? >> Senator Newton do you yield? >> I do. >> Under the existing state law, it is an offense for a male to go into a female's bathroom. >> It's been held as such in Case law in the state. >> [One final questions Mr president. >> Senator Newton do you yield? >> I do. >> Does the local government have the power to override a state law without being given specific consent by the state to do that? >> Senator Blue I really do appreciate that question. I think it begs examination by the public and this body, as to why it is that our Attorney General remains silent in enforcing the laws of this state. It is clear that an ordinance does not trump state law. >> Speak on the bill Mr. President. >> Senator Blue you have the floor to speak to bill. >> Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen of the senate. We are here three weeks before our regular session, and to be honest with you disrupting a very narrow window that many of us have to earn a living when this place is not in session. And we're here Here because I think that we've played on fears of the citizenry unjustly and unfairly. I heard of a wife, a daughter, five grand daughters, and rest assured there's nothing that I wouldn't do to protect them. Whether at school, in public places or anywhere else, against anybody who would harm them in any way at all. And when I first heard of this ordinance by the city of Charlotte, I started examining it on the same basis that Senator Newton, but I asked Senator Newton these questions. And concluded that if were serious about really protecting kids from bathrooms, then we'd make it serious offenses for males to be in women's bathrooms. This bill does nothing to do that. So we're using that That as a basis for this legislation and not doing anything to address the real issue. For the past several weeks and certainly more intentionally over the last week. I've tried to figure out what was going on in the drafting of this bill, a sense that seemed so urgent. So that we can have some inputs because if we generally have the fears about what the bill does from the standpoint of safety all of us ought to be involved in fixing it. Well, seemingly whatever ideas were didn't matter at all because they weren't solicited or listened to. And so it made me look at the voters aspects of this bill, in light of some of my fundamental believes. I believe in small government in may ways and the people right to govern themselves. And there are 800 plus thousand people in Charlotte over a million in Mecklenburg county. And I respect their ability to govern themselves as they should be able to and the voters in Charlotte whether they are afraid of those or anything else have the ability to put them out of office. Which is what they should do if they jeopardize the safety of the citizens but as the board points that, constantly concerned cuz I think that we're abandoning the fundamental value of limited government and shared government, in many ways in this bill. If we proclaim ourselves to be constitutionalist, then we start creating unconstitutional discrimination of any form then we are being hypocritical. So we sent local none discrimination policies at the local level pulls the wrath from under [UNKNOWN] of voters across the state that entrust us Close to 500 plus local government that are closer to them to decide that's how they want to proceed. Now, I agree with Senator Newton if the city of Charlotte had no
authority to do this. It would have taken 15 minutes to get a temporarily standing order, ten days we get a preliminary injunction and if they were so clear then a couple of weeks later they get a permanent injunction from this ordinates to ever going into effect without scaring the [UNKNOWN] out of the citizens of the state. And so I look at it in a broader sense because I think that the turning of our backs on North Carolinians or frightening them is not in their best interest. But I worry about the local government and the economic impact of this kind of legislation, because I was in Indiana last year at the height of that when the question got to be whether or not a state or a city was intentionally embracing some form of discrimination. And I saw the fall out where the people fully understood what they were trying to accomplish or not. I saw the fall out. And I'm frightened for that kind of fall out in North Carolina when you look at what 21st century companies start looking like. We are a state that celebrates intolerance and we will take some pride in perpetuating prejudice and repelling statutes all the time. Over 30, 40 year period, that these local governments have adopted whether it's relating to their local human relations commissions Is it relates to the Humans Relation Commission. And slowly getting your way in different forms of discrimination. And I think that as we debate this bill there are already 4500 companies that have already expressed their grave concern and very strong opposition. I think about things like that. This Bill essentially ties a moose around the necks of the citizen counties and it smothers their ability to govern in a way that their citizens think they ought to. If we think that something ought to be of prime, the state [INAUDIBLE] Job is. Our job is to make it a significant pram so that people who do are punished. So given the act that number one, it seems that quarter of the authorities are on this issue and there is a bend. They are irrelevant and unimportant. And given the fact that you've got a direct The say on the ability of people to govern themselves . That you got to roll back a 40 plus years of anti- discrimination activity. That we as democrats have determined that since we are unimportant to it . We don't have to be a part of it. And so we're not participating in this effort that you make to [INAUDIBLE] in the state.To take power from local governments,not just as it relates to discrimination ,but as it relates to their ability to do what say that we authorize them to do. And ultimately perhaps it would be best we started down the road to suspend their charters. Taking away their roles as extensions of us as county governments. And I think this is a far cry from the kind of legislation that [UNKNOWN] emergency treatment. Since we will be here in three weeks any how.[BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. President. >> Senator Apodaca/g what was - >> Senator Blue yield a question. >> Senator Blue do you yield? >> I do. >> Senator Blue do we need to take a recess so that your members can come back and do their constitutional duty? >> Their constitutional duty is to vote and participate By participation is allowed it has not been allowed in those process senator Apadoca so is up to you whether we take a recess. >>I say we move on Mr. President>>Do we have any further discussion or debate? [BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Burger for what purpose do you rise? >> To speak to the bill. >> Senator Burger you have the floor. >> Thank you Mr. president. I think it's interesting we are here today for two reasons primarily. One because the city of Charlotte decided that they were going to pass an ordinate that allows grown. Man to share bathrooms and locker facilities with girls and women that's one reason we are here today. The second reason we are here today is something pointed out by
Senator Blue interestingly enough because our Attorney General would not do his job his right which should have happened is the chief law enforcement officer of this state sort of filed a court case to enjoin the adoption or the implementation of this ordinance. Somebody wasn't doing their job and so we are now here today because of that double failure, the failure on the part of the solid sea council to listen to reason and the failure on the part of the Attorney General. To do his job and so what do we have, we have a bill that makes it clear that we are not going to put our citizens in further danger because of the recklessness of the Charlotte City Council. I think Sheriff Barns/g of Guilford County made it quite clear when he said that a majority of the people should not have to compromise their safety and privacy in public bathrooms, showers and locker rooms. And he also felt that it was inappropriate to have officers put in the awkward position of trying to determine whether or not someone thinks as a man or thinks as a woman as far as going to the restroom is concerned. No, there's no question that we would not be here if not for the Charlotte's City Council. Council and the natural consequence of what [UNKNOWN] has done has actually been pointed out very recently in the city of Seattle that had something very similar to this, and in Seattle what happened is a man shows up in a locker room that is being used by a girl's swim team. He disrobes, sits there while the girls come in to change into their swimming gear. And when confronted, he says, this is, I have a right to be here because I'm transgender. Now that is unfortunately a consequence of what happened in Seattle and I have something a lot worse Could very well happen as a result of this ordinates [BLANK_AUDIO]. I said a couple of weeks ago that the adoption of the ordinates by city council of Charlotte was just crazy and I think most people in the state feel the same way. I think one of the interesting facts that has really not being talked about is, we have spent more time the house and the senate today considering debating, talking about, answering questions, trying to reach an understanding of the consequences of the ordinates and the consequence of this bill then the city councils of Charlottes that in adapting the ordinates. There is no committee to review the ordinates. There was no public discussion as we've had here. I've always known debate back and forth as we have here and both the house and the senate. Now this body has taken a very measured approach to work has been a very radical action by the city council of Charlotte.I urge you to support that. [BLANK_AUDIO] Mr. President? >> Senator Apadoca for what purpose did you rise? >> I move the vote taken on house bill to be done by roll call please. >> Objection so ordered. Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none the question for the senate is the passage of house bill two on it's second reading and will have the roll call vote. Clerk will read the roll. >> Senate of North Carolina general assembly call the roll. >> All in favor, excuse me, vote aye oppose will vote no Alexander? >> Aye >> Apadoca? >> Aye>> Barefoot? >> Aye >> Barringer? >> Aye >>[UNKNOWN] >> Aye
>> Bigham? >> Aye >> Blue? Blue? Black? Aye >> Brown? >> Aye >> Brian? Brian? Clark? Clark? Cook? >> Aye >> Curtis? >> Aye>> Daniel?>> Aye B. Davis? B. Davis? J.Davis? >> Aye >> Ford? Ford? Foushee? Foushee? Gunn? >>Aye Harrington. >> Aye. >> Hudson. >> Aye. >> Heist. >> Aye. >> B. Jackson. >> Aye. >> J. Jackson, J. Jackson? Provict/g? >> Aye. >> Lee. >> Aye Lowe? Lowe? McInnis? >>Aye >>McKissick? McKissick? Meredith? >>Aye >>Newton?>>Aye >> Pate?>>Aye >>Raven of Hernett? >> Aye. >> Raven of Brunswick. >> Aye. >> Randerman. >> Aye. >> Robinson. Robinson? Rucho. Rucho? Sanderson. >> Aye. >> Smith. Smith? Smith Ingram? Smith Ingram? Soucek? Soucek? Park? >> Aye >>Tillman?>> Aye >>Tucker? >>Aye >> Van Duyn? Van Duyn? Waddell? Waddell? Wade? >>Aye >> Wells? >>Aye>> Woodard? Woodard? [BLANK_AUDIO] [BLANK_AUDIO] 32 having voted in the affirmative and 0 in the negative house bill two passes it second reading, and will be read a third time. >>North Caroline general assembly enact. >> Mr. President I move we do third reading electronically please I don't think they are gonna show back up. >>Without objection so orders, any further discussion or debate? Hearing all in favor of the passage of house bill two on its third reading will vote aye, opposed will vote no. Five seconds be allowed for the voting the clerk will record the vote. [BLANK_AUDIO] Lee, Senator Lee aye. 32 having voted in the affirmative and 0 in the negative, House Bill 2 passes third reading, and will be enrolled and sent to the governor via special message. [BLANK_AUDIO] House Joint Resolution 3, clerk will read. House Resolution 3, adjourn 2016's second extra session. >> Senator Apodaca is recognized to explain the resolution. >> Thank you Mr. President. Members, we've been down this path before. This takes us out until hopefully Wednesday well, takes us to April 25th. So I ask for your support, unless you wanna stay around a little longer, but April 25th. >> Is there any discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the senate is the passage of house joint resolution three on it second reading all in favor vote aye, oppose will vote no, five seconds be allowed for the voting clerk record the vote. [BLANK_AUDIO]. 32 having voted in the affirmative and 0 in the negative house joint resolution three passes its second reading and will be read a third time. General assembly of North Carolina enacts. >> Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? >> To speak on third reading please. >> Senator Apodaca you have the floor. >> Thank you Mr president members what this does is take this out today, sine dine until April the 25th, I ask for your support.
>> Is there any further discussion or debate? Heating none all in favor of passage of House Joint Resolution 3 on its third reading will say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, no. The ayes have it. House Joint Resolution 3 passes its third reading and will be enrolled. Senator Berger for what purpose do you rise? Hold on senators, we're not done yet. Senator Berger you have the floor. >> Mr. President I have a motion to get us out of here. >>Senator Burger you have the floor for the motion. >>Thank you Mr. President having concluded the business for which the senate was convened I move the senate be now adjourned 2016 second extra session sine dine. In accordance without joint resolutions three subject to the standard stipulation set forth in senate rule 24.1. The receipt of house messages and Ratification of bills and resolutions. >> Motion that the senate do now adjourn the second extra session sin dine according with house joint resolution three subject to the stipulation stated by Senator Burger seconded by Senator Apadoca, all in favor say aye. >>Aye >>Oppose no the aye's have it and the second extra session stand adjourned sine dine. [SOUND] [BLANK_AUDIO] Clarification of bills clerk will read [BLANK_AUDIO] >>Enrolls bill your own [UNKNOWN] bill duly ratified for presentation to the governor. House bill two an act to provide for single sex multiple occupancy bathroom and change facilities in schools. And public agency then can create state wide consistency and regulations of employment and public accommodation. In the following resolution duly ratified properly enrolled and prepared for the presentation to the office of the secretary of state. House drawn resolution three a A joint resolution providing for adjournment sine die over 2016 second extra session. [BLANK_AUDIO]