[BLANK_AUDIO] Senate will come to order. Soldier of Arms closed the doors and members will go to there seats. Members and guests in the gallery please silence all your electronic devices. [BLANK_AUDIO] Senators let us make our way to our seats, leading the Senate in prayer is a reverend Peter [INAUDIBLE] all members and guests in the gallery please stand. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Heavenly father thank you for all this gathered here that you have placed in this seats of leadership I pray for them each of them that they would know you more deeply and trust in your leading, have mercy on them Christ have mercy on us as you gathered little ones in your arms and bless them, you are also gathering those that were killed in Orlando innocent lives thwarted by violence of a falling world, be with us as we struggle with this mysteries of life and death, bring comfort to those in our sorrow bring your hope and your promise the new life in Christ name we pray, amen. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Senator Berger is recognized for a motion. >> Thank you Mr President the journal of Thursday June 9th 2016 has been examined and stand to be correct, I move that we dispense with the reading of the journal and that it stands approved as written. >> Without objection the journal for June 9th stands approved as written. We have leave of absence granted today for Senators Alexander, Hudsel, Raban and Tart. We also have the nurse of the day with us today. Rhonda Decker from Riley, North Carolina is here. Nurse Decker please stand and be recognized. We appreciate your service in the senate today. >> [APPLAUSE] [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Senator, the Chair's happy to extend courtesies of the floor to former Senator Josh Stein who I think is here with us. Senator Stein thank you for joining us today. Good to see you. >> [APPLAUSE] Senator Apodaca what purpose do you raise. >> Motions Mr. President. >> Senator Apodaca you have the floor for your motions. >> Thank you Mr. President. House Bill, 19. Modified definition of firefighters, it's on tonight's calendar remove and re referred to the committee c on insurance. >> Without objection so ordered. >> House Bill 657. May I stand a course of study revisions on tonight's calendar, move it to Wednesdays calendar. >> You objection so ordered. >> House joint resolution 979, confirm Cassie Vissors special dispute Court Judge, needs to be removed from the committee on roles, sent to the committee on nominations. >> Without objection so ordered. >> House joint resolution 981 confirm Mike Robinson to business corp. Currently on the committee on roles referred as the committee on nominations. >> Objection so ordered. >> House resolution 977 confirm Gregory McGuire to business corp in roles referred to nominations. >> Without objection so ordered. >>House joint resolution 978 confirm Bill Doctrigh/G to industrial commission and current in rules, rereferred to committee on nominations. >> Without objection so ordered. >> And House joint resolution 980 confirm Linda Chitum to industrial commission is in rules rereferred it to the committee on nominations. >> Without objection so ordered. >> Thank you Mr. President. Additionally, for concurrent Senate Bill 160 is on tonight's calendar, asked it to be removed and placed on tomorrow's calendar. >> Without Objection so ordered. [BLANK_AUDIO] Do we have any reports of standing committees. Senator Barringer for your purpose please rise. >> To send forward a committee report. >> You may send forward your report Senator. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] The clerk will read. >> Senator Barringer, would you initiate two committee, submits the passage. House Bill 870 community substitute number one. Unfavorable as committee substitute Bill number one bu to favorable as to Senate Committee Substitute Bill, title an act to clarify the renewal, release and cancellation processed for security interest on the significance of the title
for manufacturer's homes and to clarify the calculation of the cost of undertaking for the installation for the manufactured home. >> House Bill 870. Calendar. [BLANK_AUDIO] Senators, we also have a leave of absence for Senator Dan Blue. [BLANK_AUDIO] That takes us right into our calendar for this evening. Starting with Public Bills. House Bill 169 the clerk will red. >> House Bill 169. Regulatory Reduction Act of 2016. >> Senator Wade is recognized to explain the Bill. >> Thank you Mr. President I believe this bill has been thoroughly discussed in at least two committees and passed out with a favorable report. So if there's any questions, i'll be glad to answer them or try to. If not, I ask for your support. >> Do we have any discussion or debate? Senator Chaudhuri do you discuss - >> Mr. President, I'll ask to debate the Bill. >> Senator Chaudhuri you have the floor. >> Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President, my colleagues that support part one of the regulatory reduction act of 2016 make the following argument. The legislator delegates too much of authority to so called unelected bureaucrats who exceed their rule making authority and where they pass such rules that cost millions of dollars. Therefore supporters argue, the legislature should restrict and prohibit such costly rules until they receive legislative approval. Mr. President, i believe that Section one of this bill presents three problems First this Bill face fails to recognize and appreciate that the General Assembly has already put in place safeguards against excessive rule making authority. By first setting forth a detail process and second, empowering no less that three government bodies to oversee the rule making process. In other words it is very, very hard to get rules passed. And I share this observation with you from a first hand experience as a former general council to a large agency where I oversaw the rule making process. To remind members of the Senate about this detailed process, each agency is overseeing each agency rules are overseen by the Rules Review Commission. The Rules Review Commission is required to defer amend if these rules meet a three part test. And aside from this three part criteria Mr President, if the Rules Review Commission receives no less than 10 letters of objection including objections that can come from out the state, it is automatically subject to legislative review. Such a legislative review has the practical impact of delaying rules for more than a year. And that's just the rule making process. As I mentioned that there are three government bodies. The rules review commission, the Office of State Budget and Management and the Joint Legislative Administrative Procedure Oversight Committee. That play a role in reviewing these rules. This thorough process an oversight has had the effect of dramatically decreasing the number of agents the rules proposed. Since 1996, this general assembly has given the rules review commission power to veto agency rules. And in fact an analysis by the news and observer pointed out that in the five years before the 1996 law was passed, they gave veto power to the Rules Review Commission. Agencies introduced an average of 2500 rules. In the three years after the 1996 law passed, the average dropped to less than half 1300 rules. Second, I have concerns that this bill was result in a heavier legislative workload on arcane issues in which many members of this body are not subject matter experts. Like every member in this body, I believe in government efficiency. And I believe that such efficiency should extend to our legislative body. In other words, our legislative body should not bite off more than we can chew. I do not believe that we should create more legislative red tape which is exactly what this bill does. For example as an allegedly part time legislative body we are charged with passing a budget and then years pass then I know this year will be different Senator Apadoca as you all know both republican and democrat control legislatures have failed to pass a budget on time. With this in mind I ask each of you, do we now want to significantly increase our legislative responsibilities by debating agency rules in which most of us are not subject matter experts? As an example, do we wanna spend time debating whether children should take a total of five doses for whooping cough and at what ages should such doses be administered? Finally Mr.
President, I have concerns that this bill could result in impasse because this legislative body could just as easily decide not to take action on these major rules. If the relevant actors, the state agency, the house the Senate and the Governor cannot come to an agreement, the end result is a stalemate. And that stalemate could result in the delay for important rules that help and protect our children, our families and our environment. According to The Office of State Budget Management, at least four sets of rules would be outright prohibited by this legislation. To name just a few. The department of Public Instruction would be prohibited from adoption rules for Reed to achieve a program that is championed by Senator Berger. The Department of Health and Human Services would be prohibited from adopting immunization rules ranging from diphtheria to measles vaccines. The information technology services agency would be prohibited from adopting 911 board rules. Both the Falls Lake and Jordan Lake Rules will be prohibited and this comes just after this body voted to repeal and delay those rules again last week. Do we wanna delay these major rules thereby putting our children's health in education at risk, our families public safety at risk and our environment at risk. To be fair Mr President, both Republicans and Democrats support regulatory reform. This is an issue that as many people know both Former United States Senator Ted Kennedy and Jesse Helms agreed upon. It is an issue that past Governors, both Democrats and Republicans have agreed upon on pursuit but Mr. President I believe that a regulatory reform bill with input from agency general councils, industry leaders, consumer advocates, the state bar association, and even our own program evaluation division. Which this bill does not do would certainly warrant consideration passage by the Senate, however I do not believe that the option before us the regulatory reduction act is the right choice And therefore I urge my colleagues to vote no on this Bill. >> Senator McKissick for, what purpose, you rise? >> Speak on the Bill. >> Senator McKissick you have the floor. >> We got a Bill before us today. It's another one of these omnious Bills that puts together about six to eight different things, all into one large expansive bill. When many of these issues really deserve separate discussion and separate consideration. One of the provision that gives me great concern is the repeal of all of the recycling requirements when it relates to those manufacturers and distributors of computers and televisions in the State. Those particular provisions are good. Those provisions are important and those provisions have diverted, just in 2013, 14 alone, just about 30 million pounds of electronics. discarded computers, discarded television sets into our land fields. We should be concerned about them going in there. The cost, sometimes they contain lead, sometimes it's heavy metal, sometimes it's material that you may not even know about that you may later determine it's dangerous to the public. And it may lead to long term water and ground contamination, long term soil contamination. Those are thing we should not back away from. Our commitment to the quality of life in this State should be pervasive in significant. We wanna to make sure we got fresh air. We want to make sure that our water quality is good, we want to make sure that soils are not contaminated. Allowing these particular provisions remain a part of law is the right thing to do. More importantly, if you look at the number of jobs that have been created through these recycling centers it's been over 600 jobs created on state. And by looking at the fact that when you're wanting to discard these kinda products, it has to be done in a practical way. It needs to be done in a safe way. Environmentally responsible way, and really we would be negligent if we were to repeal these provisions without thinking over long term precautions of doing so. It's already law, it's already in effect. The only person who had benefit are the manufacturers. And the only thing they have to contribute is based upon their market Share within a state law Carolina, a particular categories. Why would we not do that? I think those of you living in large cities in particular, and even those in medium size cities, if you go back and talk to your members in city councils that have these programs in effect, you talk to your county commissioners. And I've done so I've done so on the large urban county and I did some in rule county several rule county that I have spoken people. They don't want to see this repel.
They believe it's beneficial and I think we are being very very very short sighted to do some. [BLANK_AUDIO] Senator Wade for what purpose your eyes? >> To speak on the bill. >> Senator Wade you have the floor to speak to the bill. >> Mr President could we have the items placed on the calendar here or we can see then that [INAUDIBLE] they are not amendments they are just items that- >> You have material for the dashboard we get that material pulled up for Senator Wade, okay we see it here so everybody should have that material on their dashboard right now. Is there anybody that does not have that material on the dashboard, if I look on for somebody next to you Senator Wade you have the floor. >> All right thank you Mr. President. I hope you will look on this material because what you will see is computers, TV sets, [INAUDIBLE] graphs been sitting on graphs for counties, out there waiting for someone to come and recycle that material, the problem is the counties can no longer find a recycler. There isn't a market for it, so Senator McKissick I agree with you 100%, I don't want the lead and metals going into the ground water and I guarantee that the [INAUDIBLE] on that ground when it rains it's going into the ground water in those areas, and there is lots of it out there and I too have thought to county commissioners and they are having a real problem finding a recycler, I've had one government tell me they've gone through three in the last six months, and they paid over a $150,000 trying to get somebody to pick it up, governments have also had a lot of losses due to work injuries we are stacking the equipment cuz they can't get anybody to pick it up, so putting it in line landfill where it can't put those metals out into the soil and into the water, it's much better than having it stacked up as you can see in all this pictures this came recently from counties, that want to remain anonymous because they don't want people to it's stuck out their and they sure don't want department of environment quality to come out and fine them for it. So they are having a real problem and they've asked us to please do something about it. The computer parts can go to the land fields. Just not computers and just not TVs. And what we used to have a recycle that could send it overseas especially India because they use the cathode TV's over they made new ones out of them but guess what they've gone to flat screens and that was 70% of our market. So now if you are reading I was just reading some information which I found very interesting about the fact that a national article that the US is stamp in houses just electronic waste into Asia. I'm one of the appointed that Senator Mckissick and I don't think anybody in here wants to when it would be a lot easier to put it in a land field and make it safer for everyone and it does not stop recycling. If the market comes back and these counties what to continue there recycling program there's nothing in here that prevents them from recycling the material but right now we've got counties begging us to let them put it in the land field cuz they can't afford to pay recyclers if they can find one $600, $800 a tonne to remove these electronics. So what I would ask for your support again to help protect our environment from these electronics from just sitting out there as you can see in these pictures. Thank you Mr. President. >> Senator Wells, what purpose do you raise. >> To debate the Bill. >> Senator Wells you have the floor. >> Thank you Mr. President. Members, we've heard a little denied about restrictions on rule sand section one, I guess your point of view on that depends on what you've been doing with your life if you spend a life time making rules and you kinda like rules. If you spend a life time in business fighting rules like walking through pluff mud up to your knees, it's a whole different point of view. We talk about a lot of things that sound good around here and if we don't do them it's gonna be bad for this group or that group. Hope we don't say much about what things cost and about everything in life has a cost. Every choice has a cost. What we're trying to do here, is simply put a dollar amount on a rule before we make it. And when that rule is $10 million over 5 years, or $15 million over
5 years or $99 million over 5 years to the North Carolina economy we just want somebody's name on it, just like we put our names on a bill when we push that green button. We want an elected official, be it the governor, or the council of state to sign off on a rule that's costing our economy, our people over $10 million in a five year period, and then there is another level, if it's over $100 million there will still be a rule for view commission this bill doesn't change that, there'll still be ten letters to put a hold on something this bill doesn't change that. You can still go through that process, this simply says that the legislature needs to get involved, it may be something I don't know much about but if it's going to hit our economy to the tune of 100 million dollars I think I'm taking the time to get involved in it. I ask for you support. >> Senator Odell what purpose your eyes? >> Thank you Mr President, Mr President I wanna speak to section 4.2 >> You have the floor Senator. >> Thank you, we have a lot of problems with this bill, problems concerning our environment. And there are a number of implications here that causes it not be safe. It's been 5.2 you speak of your trash no longer solely consist of vegetative matter, due to landscape and home maintenance. The way the waste classified under this definition is no longer It's no longer required to have special waste permits when they are brought to the landfill. I think that's wrong. When they're stored, are treated, are disposed off in waste management facilities. Local governments are not subject to any restriction regarding the management of such waste. So long as it complies with state,local and federal laws. And what we're saying here is kinda convoluted, a little bit mixed up. Because when you think for the [UNKNOWN] the section expands the definition of yard trash and defines your waste include your trash. Then I'll throw when it turns around, it exempts facilities from having to obtain a permit for both. Without permits in place to regulate the safe disposal of yard waste we may see increased waste in our ground water. All we do want is good drinking water, and we want it to be safe. Despite disease can rodents, and insects like mosquitoes. Well, they have an opportunity to exist. And at the time when we're concerned about Zika viruses, we should be taking extra precaution And we shouldn't be repeating our sound policy.And think about it, the mismanagement of hard waste can lead to bad hazards, especially during our dry season. And the loop hole may even create opportunities for illegal dropping. So, proper use of yard waste is too raise is too important, just too important to rely on the federal government. So hazardous waste is being dumped with the yard waste, we must likely find out after the fact when someone becomes very ill from having been exposed to it So I think we got to think about what we are doing in this bill and for that reason is difficult for me to support it. >> Senator Brown what purpose your eyes. >> Speak briefly to the bill. >> Senator Brown you have the floor. >> I just got to respond to the senators comments as a race to this yard waste permitting. And I wanna read the bill because I think it's important that you know what we're talking about. It says from landscaping and yard maintenance including brush, grass, tree lems/g and several vegetative material. It also says in here and later on it talks about that it doesn't change anything and you still have to comply with all other federal state or local laws, ordinances, rules and regulations or is including zoning, land paying and wetland restrictions. I don't know how you can get much clearer than that, and we're talking about somebody cleaning their yard. and having to get a permit. I mean is that what we want people to do in order to clean your got, you gotta go get a permit from somebody? I mean how crazy is that.
I mean my gosh I sure hope we don't get that far. >> Senator, Apodaca what purpose you rise? >> See if Senator Brown a question. >> Senator Brown do you yield for question. >> Yes. >> We've heard a lot of things said in the last 15 minutes, Senator Brown but I heard somebody say something about being late on the budget. Are we late on the budget? >> No, I don't think we're late yet. I think we got until the end month. >> Okay I thought time had gotten passed. Thank you. >> Mr. President Senator McKissick for what purpose do you rise?. >> To speak a second time on the bill. >> Senator McKissick you have the floor to speak the second time. >> I would like to address the issue that Senator Wade has brought up and the picture she has put out there. If you look at that picture the solution is not to open our land fields for computers is not to open Open it up to [UNKNOWN] cuz it has the liquid in them and the heavy metals and the lead. The solution is to establish a reasonable time frame that a person has to appropriately get these particular type of appliances into recycling program and otherwise Try to make sure that they're handled appropriately. That may mean a window of time, that they have to do so. That may mean conditions under which they need to be stored but it's not a matter of opening up our landfills to this ways that we don't need, a stream that today we're avoiding As the Senator [INAUDIBLE] about the provision sir, I think that when we have come up with language, and I addressed this in committee which basically says and we're looking at that potential impact of a rule or regulation, it cannot be Over $100 million over 5 years, and it doesn't establish a methodology for computing that $100 million. It includes costs imposed on the public sector, as well as the private sector. and your'e cumulatively looking at that impact And the private sector in some instances may have far better data dealing with the impacted, a particular rule of regulation of provision may have upon their particular trade, business, industry. Government may have a completely different number but these numbers without a methodology, without an approach, without standards Are inherently problematic and it's gonna result in litigation and that's the door we've opened, and when I address this issue in committee, about how are you gonna get your arms around this, how're you gonna wrestle it? How're you gonna come up with the calculation of those costs and expenses? There was Was no answer. That's problematic. It's going to result potentially in unintended consequences but things we could avoid if we put little a bit more planning and thought and consideration into it, we gonna just, passing it out, sending it to the house and waiting for the house to immerse theirs In details and come up with another approach. That's why I think that particular language is challenging, and that's why I feel, we've been remiss when we passed the bill out that contains it. >> Senator Chaudhary, for what purpose do you rise? >> Speak to the bill. >> You have the floor to peak a second time Second time Senator. >> Thank you Mr. President. Mr. President to be clear Senator Apadoka, when I was talking about our budget being laid out I said that was both Democratic and Republican controlled legislators and this year it will be different. I wanted to respond to Senator Wells's comments about section one and while I have spent spent part of my career making rules. I think it's also important to note that when a rule comes before the rule review commission there are many opportunities for business that is represented by law firms and lobbyists to make their point in drawing up the rule. So I can also tell you that, most agency general councils will not draw up rules without generally consulting the industry that will be impacted, and as a reminder of the fact that this chamber has had this debate almost 20 years ago. In 1996 when we passed legislation granting the rules review communication veto over agency rules, it was past according to the The news and observer that said in response to business complaints of too much regulation, this was a comment that Phil Curr, the head of the North Carolina Citizens for industry Business then told the newspaper, then the largest business lobby had this to say to News Observer that I think bureaucracy think a little more thinks a little more now before making rules because they know they're going to be reviewed, so that's my first point, is that we do not make rules in a vacuum, these rules are made consultation with business and understand what the impact will be towards business.
Secondly around on the issue of uncertainty in the cost of the These rules will create, I would simply suggest and argue to you that adding this new layer of legislative review or what I would call legislative red tape, only creates additional confusion in the process. During our committee debate, there was a mention of the Federal Rains act which is what this Section one is modeled after and in a speech that Justice Anthoncscalia, hardly a liberal, made to private attorneys about the idea of legislative veto, this is what he had to say to a group of fibred attorneys. He said I invite you private attorneys to consider how altered your Altered your function will be in the brave new world of congressionally reviewable rule making. Currently having finished your arguments before the agency, you carry them before the courts. In the future there will be the intermediate process of congressional lobbying. Under the new system the agency will first consider The matter on a rational or an analytic basis, the congress will then decide whether even though the agency decision may be rational and analytically correct it should be abandoned for what may be purely political reasons, whether the agency survives that tasks it will be again be reviewed in the courts to see whether it is rationally and analytically correct Correct, such a system it seems to me is madness. In other words Justice Carlisle warned about the further politicizing of the rule making process and the madness it would create, and I would suggest to you that the confusion and the madness that creates doesn't serve any business interest well. Thank you Senator Brian, what purpose do you rise. >> To debate the Bill Mr. President. >> Senator Brian you have the floor. >> I wanted to mention two provisions. First I want to mention section 2.1 that exempts certain building code classifications from energy efficiency standards and this section the The Bill would have the building code council exempt certain building code classifications from the energy efficiency standards in the conservation code, and these classifications would be the factory group f of the storage group s and the And the utility and miscellaneous group u. So what we are basically doing here is creating a give away to large commercial builders when they build these large commercial facilities and shifting that course onto the businesses who will occupy those business buildings over a period of years.Who will be paying high energy cost, than they would otherwise pay under the energy efficiency standards.And ultimately, some of their burden being shared in other classifications such as the residential classification of utility users. So, we're basically being pawn foolish in sense of making clegnise senif/g for large comercial builders to really build cheaper buildings only to increase cost over time, that would be born with the rest of us, and unduly burden on energy resources. So, for that reason I also would oppose this bill along with the other points already made by my colleagues. Additionally, on the matter of yard waste, I wanted to clarify that what the bill does is say if you take yard waste out of the of the solid waste stream, or otherwise separately collect yard waste, trash, however is to find, you'll not need a permit. So, either that means to clean up your yard, you have to get a permit. It just mean where you go, you'd need to dump that waste. You or your yard maintenance persons would need to dump that waste in our permitted locations and particularly in rural areas, small towns that may not have the strongest is only requirements are even up to date is only requirements we are going to have the situation of dumped yard waste and trash in areas that are not permitted and following regulations and again breeding some of the problems that Senator Wardell mentioned, so I just wanted to clarify that it didn't seem to say to me that as a resident I had to have a permit, it says to me where the waste is now dumped does not have to have a permit and of course that is of the concern that has been raised, for that reason I think this bill is not a good bill and we should both know and would encourage you to do the same.
>> Mr President. >> Senator Brock what purpose do you rise? >> To speak to the bill briefly. >> You have the floor to speak to the Bill. >> I don't care if I can do this energy efficiency code. Whether it should be up to the company or not because it's interesting how people are making these rules have never worked in a factory, have never worked in a mill. They don't know what type of equipment or machinery that's in the factory. We adopted the energy code that was washed and wanted us to and we got a $30 Million grant. It cost one of my companies, if it was poorly implemented, it would cost them $91 Million. Because of those codes, because of those regulations, we lost 1,000 jobs from North Carolina. For a company that would have 27 loading bays with their doors open with machinery that produce a lot of heat. They didn't the type of insulation, they want the heat out of the building. So, I think it's a good bill. It's a good step, we're leading the nation in job creation, I think if we're gonna help more. I urge you support the bill. >> Any further discussion debate? Hearing none, propose yours. >> [COUGH] Pardon me, to speak on the bill. >> Senator Vandane, you have the floor to speak to the bill. >> I don't think anyone is arguing the cost of a rule should be irrelevant. Nevertheless, there are costs associated with not implementing a bill. And in my mind it makes no sense to put a carp on regulations without addressing the potential cost potential cost your North Carolina families who will inevitably pay the price of clean up if we get this wrong. These regulations and programs that are rolled back in this still provide practical, environmental and economic guidelines and to eliminate them without consideration for the impact that they would have on the people of our State is irresponsible. We have to protect North Carolina families. That's our job. Not potential polluters and so I urge you to vote against this Bill. >> Any further discussion to debate. Hearing none question for the Senate is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 169 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye, opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. Moore >> No. >> No. >> Aye. >> Smith Ingram. >> No >> Clerk No. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> 30 having voted in the affirmative and 15 in the negative, Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 169 passes its second reading, without objection will be read a third time. >> North Carolina General Assembly in act. >> Any discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question for the senate is the passage of the Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 169 on its third reading. All in favor will say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no, the ayes have it. Senate Committee Substitute to House Bill 169 passes its third reading, it will be sent to the House for concurrence in the Senate Committee Substitute. >> Mr. President- >> Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? >> To send forth committee report out of order. >> You can send forth your committee report out of order. >> Thank you Mr. President, it will be a [INAUDIBLE] make a report. I'm happy to announce the Oxmeter Committee just met. And it's a historical night. And I wish former Senator Stan was still here. He is.Thank you Josh. It is a proud night when a successor earns the Oxmeter in front of the man he succeeded >> [LAUGH] [APPLAUSE] >> Senator Chaudhuri for what purpose do you rise? >> I rise from personal privilege out of order. >> I am actually not senator Chaudhuri, I'm actually Senator Stud. >> [LAUGH] Moving on, house bill 242 clerk will read. House bill 242 [INAUDIBLE] law changes. >> Senator Tillman is recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you Mr.President the bill is a clean up bill and is a bill to streamline some regulations and polices regarding certain skills, the first application of them.Those that, what they call low performing and the definition of low performing. A little funding, reporting mechanism and the require the public
schools report their funding and local funding by balances. Also, the fast track regulation and so forth. So, there's about 708 says in this bill, and if you have questions , open floor, I'll be happy to try and answer them. >> Do we have any discussion or debate? Senator [INAUDIBLE] for what purpose do you rise? >> To sent forward an amendment. Senator Clavick you can send forward the amendment, we have it the clerk will read. >> Senator Clavick moves to amend the bill. >> Senator Clavick is recognized to explain the amendment. >> Thank you Mr. President. This is an oversight correction more than a substitute change moves to amend the bill on page eight, 121 are changing the date from 2017 to 2018. Changing it from 2017 to 2018 and substituting 2018 to 2019. And this is requested from the state board of to give him more time to process this. >> [INAUDIBLE] Do we have any discussion or debate on the amendment? Hearing none the question before the senate is the adoption of the amendment, all in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will open the vote. >> Berger aye, Apodaca Aye, Ruccho aye. [BLANK_AUDIO] 45 having voted in the affirmative in zero and negative amendment one is adopted. The bill as amended is back before the body, do we have any discussion or debate on the bill as amended? Hearing none question for the senate is the passage of the senate committee substitute to house bill 242 as amended on its second reading, all in favor vote aye, opposes will vote no. Five seconds we will be allowed for the voting, the clerk will record the vote. Apodaca, aye, Berger aye, Ruccho aye. Tucker aye, [BLANK_AUDIO] 45 having voted affirmative and zero in the negative side senate committee substitute to house bill 242 as amended passes its second reading without objection, be read a third time. >> Mr. President? >> Senator Clavick/g? >> Objection to third reading please. >> Senator Clavick objects to third reading and will remain on the calendar. House bill 283 the clerk will read. >> House bill 283, prevent squatting and foreclose real property. >> Senator Bingham is recognized to explain the bill. >> [BLANK_AUDIO] Thank you Mr. President, ladies and gentlemen the senate, this is the conclusion of in 2015, there was two other bills on [UNKNOWN] two other bills on [UNKNOWN] probably remember the one was on [UNKNOWN], the other one was [UNKNOWN]. This one is someone who knew [UNKNOWN] will property in House another thing and this's been a serious problem in Charlotte union county area. You've heard this before, I would ask for your support. I think senator Lee and also [UNKNOWN] and Ford had some suggestions that we may change [INAUDIBLE] to include this bill, I don't know if they wanna comment on it and also Senator Tucker. I'm not saying any further thing one has any questions but I do think some of the other senators might wanna comment on this. >> Do we have any other discussion or debate on the bill? Senator Lee for what purpose do you rise? >> To speak the bill. >> Senator Lee you have the floor. >> I wanted to thank Senator Bingham. There were a lot of revisions that were made to address a number of concerns that were brought forward from a real estate perspective, and in particular with the recording statutes. So I wanna thank him for that and I urge your support as well. >> Any further discussion or debate? Senator McKissick for what purpose do you rise? >> To speak on the bill. >> Senator McKissick you have the floor to speak to the bill. >> Likewise, I'd like to thank Senator Bingham for his leadership on this issue. It's gonna help an awful lot of people and those in illegally going to squat in somebody's foreclosed properties or other properties. Really at this point and time, it provides legal enhancements to get them out and do it in a way where there is appropriate penalties to tax. So thank you Senator Bingham for working on it, and for working with Senator Lee as well and coming up with issues that we needed to resolve that could have had some unforeseen consequences. >> Any further discussion or debate on the bill? Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? Mr. Chairman Bingham yield to a question? >> Senator Bingham do you yield? >> [BLANK_AUDIO] >> I'll have to use Senator Rucho's microphone, I think mine was broken, but anyway go ahead, I'll be happy to try to answer. >> It may not work with your accent but Senator Bingham I know you're leaving as I and Senator Hartsel, Senator Rucho are leaving, do
you have somewhere to stay for the next three weeks if this passes? >> [LAUGH] >> No, I was actually planning to move your area, you have a place I could stay out there, thank you. >> Any further discussion or debate on the bill? Hearing none the question before the senate is the passage of senate committee substitute of the House Bill 283 on it's second reading. All those in favor of it aye, oppose the vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. [BLANK_AUDIO] Tucker. Senator Tucker. >> Aye. 45 having voted in the affirmative and zero in the negative. Senate Committee Substitute the House bill 283 passes a second reading without objection. To be read a third time. >> North Carolina general assembly enacts. >> Any discussion or debate? Hearing none. The question before the senate is the passage Senate Committee Substitute to House bill 283 on it's third reading. All in favor will say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed, no. The ayes have it. Senate committee substitute house bill 283 passes its third reading, it will be sent to the house for concurrence in the senate committee substitute. House bill 591, clerk will read. >> House bill 591, study [INAUDIBLE] governance. >> Senator Cook is recognized to explain the bill. >> Thank you Mr. President. This bill establishes a task force to stay the governance process of the [INAUDIBLE] commission in the [UNKNOWN] North island historical association. The task force will be comprised of local institute folks and the secretary of natural and cultural resources. Unfortunately The visitation for the Festival park has been declining, while other sites in the area have been increasing. The last part of this bill would remove the statutory requirement that Toronto/g county commissioned meet four times a year. The NC Department of Natural and Culture Resources requested this provision. I ask for your support. >> Are we having a discussion or debate on the bill? Hearing none the question for the Senate is passage of the Senate Committee substitute to House bill 591 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the court will record the vote. [BLANK_AUDIO] 45, having voted the affirmative in zero in the negative center committee substitute to House Bill 591 passes its second reading without objection be read a third time. >> North Carolina General Assembly enacts. >> Do we have any discussion or debate. Hearing none the question for the Senator is the passage of the Senator Committee Substitute the House Bill 591 on it's third reading. All in favor will say aye. >> Aye. Opposed no. The aye's have it. Senator Committee Substitute House Bill 591 passes it's third reading will be sent to the House for concurrence and the Senate Committee substitute. And that wraps up our calendar for this evening. Senator Apadoca, for what purpose do you rise? >> Mr. President motion please. >> Senator Apadoca you have the floor for your motion. >> Thank you Mr. president, members are senate resolution 896 was filled tonight in the clerks office I ask it be referred to the committee on nominations confirmed [UNKNOWN] to Agriculture board. >> Without objection so ordered. At this time we'd like to welcome our pages for this week and introduce themselves. Pages if you would make you way around to the front here. [BLANK_AUDIO] In your order. [BLANK_AUDIO] Clerk will read. Pages serving in the chamber this week. Alexus Billy, Raleigh. Hymbanger, Kerry. Angry Bowman, Raleigh. Emmi Clemons Raleigh. Hogan Dispal/g, South court. Telian Fall, Stanford, Edman Gaten, Raleigh. William Gilcrest Raleigh, Tech Hurgady Raleigh, Elissa Hanson, Apex, Trevor Hurtley/g, Jasonville, Ray Johnson Raleigh, Eva Logan, Charlotte, Lindsey Lovet/g, Marvin, Josh Meredith Spendville/g. >> [LAUGH] Ashton Murphy Handerson, John Nickelson the third Raleigh, Seth Norwood, Greensrborough, Riley Purther, Durham, Regan Rushing Windgate/g, Jordan Saykler, about four Thema, Jaycee Smith, Reedsville, Adam Stine, Riley, Griffen Sullivan, Riley, Orin Tiriny the third Riley, Gruerer Webb Riley, Angel Williams, Grifftin, Sam Willston Home, Grip, Carey, Zen Western Home [INAUDIBLE] >> Well senators you have no shortage of help
this week, hope you keep them busy. Pages thank you o much for taking time out of your summer to serve us here in the senate. >> [APPLAUSE] >> Do we have any notices or announcements? Senator Van Duyn, for what purpose you rise? >> I would like to move that we adjourn in honor of the victims of the tragedy in Orlando. >> Thank you senator. Any other notices or announcements. Senator Sanderson for what purpose do you rise? >> For an announcement. >> You have the floor senator. >> Thank you Mr. Speaker Mr. President state local government will meet tomorrow at 12 o'clock, it's not on your calendar for today. But we will meet at 12 o'clock in room 423. >> Any other notices or announcements from anybody? Any further business come forth the senate. If not the chair recognizes Senator Berger for a motion. [BLANK_AUDIO] >> Thank you Mr. President I move that the Senate now adjourns substitute standard stipulation set forth in Senate rule 24.1. Receipt of conference reports, the appointment of conferees, ratification of bills, receipt of house house messages to reconvene on Tuesday June 14, 2016 at 2 pm. And ask that adjournment be done in memory and in honor of the victims of Orlando. >> Motion of senate may now adjourn. Subject to the stipulation stated by Senator Berger in an honor of the victims of the tragic shooting in Orlando, to reconvene Tuesday June 14th at 2 pm, seconded by Senator Barringer All in favor say aye. >> Aye. >> Opposed no. The Ayes have it, the senate stands adjourned. [SOUND] [BLANK_AUDIO]