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.

Senate | July 25, 2013 | Chamber | Session Part 3

Full MP3 Audio File

Senator Davis, you going to round up your colleagues? Thank you. Okay. Doesn't matter unless it's called. Let the record show Senator McLaurin has an excused absence for the rest of the session. Senator Hartsell, you going to be ready to go as soon as we get them back? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I can begin the base bill. I'm waiting on an omnibus amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whatever you want to do. I can.... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Probably be good if we get them...hang on a moment. [INAUDIBLE] Yeah. Yes. Messages from the House? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Messages from the House. Mr. President, it is ordered that a message be sent your honorable body with the information that the House has adopted a report of the conferees of Senate Bill 182, conference report. A bill to be entitled to enact to eliminate appeals for infractions to modify appeals for a certain period of court and probation revocations in which the defendant has waived a hearing. To amend the law pertaining to ?? representing upon the reversal of a sentence or appellate review to make changes regarding the procedures for a motion or appropriate reason to reclassify certain misdemeanors as infractions when the appropriate action has been taken by both chambers, the bill will be ordered in roll. Respectfully, Denise Weeks, Principal Clerk. Mr. President, it is ordered that a message be sent your honorable body with the information that the House has adopted a report of the conferees on House Bill 417, a conference report. A bill to be entitled to enact to modify the internal auditing statutes applicable to large state departments and in university systems. When the appropriate action has been taken by both chambers, the bill will be ordered in roll. Respectfully, Denise Weeks. House Joint Resolution 123, a joint resolution adjourning the 2013 regular session to a date certain in limiting the matters that may be considered upon reconvening. Refer to rules. Senate Bill 71, House committee substitute enact amending the laws regulating the irrigation contractors to provide substantive requirements for licensing corporations to provide for the issuance of licenses to non-residents to clarify the fee structure and to make it more ?? changes. Receive for a concurrence placed on the calendar July 25th. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We'll move on to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator. What purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To hand up a conference report for House Bill 122. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, send forth your report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Conference report. To the President of the Senate: The conferees appointed to resolve the differences between the Senate and the House of Representatives on House Bill 122, a bill to be entitled to enact the laws pertaining to interlocutory appeals as related to family law and to modify the law regarding discipline for judges. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar. And we'll go to the supplemental calendar. House Bill 92. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 92. GSC technical corrections 2013. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hartsell to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President and members of the Senate. We went through this in some detail in Rules this morning. I will try to limit the comments, which is kind of unusual in the context of a technical bill, but we'll try to do that quickly. The first seventeen sections... or the first sixteen sections you've already seen. They came from the General Statutes Commission. They were passed by this body, oh, probably two months ago. The next several pages, sections seventeen...okay... Section...I just got word from my good friend Senator Blue that I can speed it up. I will try to do that. I happen to have a cheat sheet. Makes it a little.... [AUDIO ENDS]

Speaker 1: …to do that too. The next section are technical and I consider it to be just that, and meant to be just that, and hopefully are. The third section, beginning with section 27.8 are other changes, some of which are technical, most of which are clarifying, but probably some substantive provisions, which, I would suggest you take a look at. I can go through those in some detail if someone asks. There are some of these sections that since this particular matter was adopted by the rules committee that upon further review there are some amendments and some deletions because of some issues, but I do not have that particular amendment as of yet Mr. President. I would suggest that if it would be possible if we could just displace this that would give the opportunity for the members to review the bill as it is and we will have the amendment shortly. Mr. President: Senator? Speaker 2: Mr. Chair, two motions please. Mr. President: Make your motions. Speaker 2: I move that we displace house bill 92 while folks have an opportunity to review this, perhaps put it at the end of the subpenal calendar? Mr. President: Without objection, so ordered. Speaker 2: Second motion. I would like to move that Senate Bill 353 be brought before us for immediate consideration. Mr. President: Without objection, so ordered: Senate Bill 353 – motion to concur. Clerk: Senate Bill 353, Health and Safety law changes. Mr. President: Senator Daniels is recognized to explain the motion. Speaker 2: Thank you Mr. President, Member of the Senate. In early July we passed most of the provisions of this bill and house bill, page 695. We had two days of vigorous debate then. Rather then concur with the bill, they referred it to the health care committee. Based on some suggestions by the health and human services, a few minor changes were made to the bill in section 4. So, I will just go over those briefly. In section 4A, under the women’s right to know act changes, the prior version of the bill required the physician to be present during all phases of a chemically induced abortion. The change that was made reduces that requirement to only the first dosage of the chemically inducing drug and subsequent doses of the drug would not have to be done in the presence of a physician. The other changes that were made were in section 4C which was basically at the request of the department: they wanted some additional some guidance on the rule making process, so that was the reason for the change in the language. The significance of that is now any rules that are promulgated by the department will be done so as not to unduly restrict access to the abortion procedures. One of the comments Secretary Vas had made in the committee meeting in the house was that they felt like they perhaps did not have the necessary resources to inspect abortion clinics on a regular basis; so section 4D is a new section which is basically a study provision in which the department is going to study the resources they need in order to, I guess, carry out their supervisory or enforcement duties under the new promulgated rules. Those are the substantive portions that were changed in the bill. I would recommend that we concur with the motion and would be glad to answer any questions with regard to the changes. Mr. President: Discussion or debate? Senator, for what purpose do you rise? Speaker 3: To speak on the bill. Mr. President: Senator has the floor. Speaker 3: We have to talk about facts sometimes even though we do not like to. So I am going to talk about a few facts. More than 20 years have passed since the last reported abortion related death in NC. Here is a person speaking on behalf of this, who says…

Having an abortion is safer than getting an injection of penicillin. This is Doctor David Grimes. He's an OB/GYN who speaks on behalf of the American Congress of OB/GYNs on this issue. ?? for the Abortion Surveillance of the Center for Diseased Control. Let's hear some facts. Who is against this? The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the American College of Surgeons and the American College of Physicians have all spoken out against rules like these. Several have spoken about interfering with a patient's and a doctor's relationship. The biggest problem in North Carolina is that there are not enough staff to adequately inspect these facilities. Our own secretary of HHS has asked us that if we want to adequately inspect them, we give her more staff. Why are we studying? The facts are that those who are most involved are against this bill, as are many, many citizens. I urge you to vote not to concur. Speaker Changes: Mr. President? Speaker Changes: Senator Stein for what purpose do you rise? Speaker Changes: To debate the motion to concur. Speaker Changes: The Senator has the floor. Speaker Changes: Thank you, Mr. President. I'd like to follow-up on Senator Kinnaird's comments. The fundamental debate is restricting a woman's ability to exercise her constitutional right vs what you all have said is protecting women's health. Senator Kinnaird identified a number of medical groups and doctors who've spoken on that. What I'd like to do is just read, briefly, from a letter that we all got on July 16th from the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, North Carolina section, as well as the North Carolina Obstetrical and Gynecological Society from North Carolina Medical Society. These folks actually are trained, highly, in promoting women's health during reproductive uh, their reproduction. North Carolina, NCOGS and NCACOG, the two leading statewide professions associations of OB/GYN physicians believe that this legislation, Senate Bill 353, interferes with the patient/physician relationship, restricts the reproductive rights of women, and substitutes ideology for sound science and medical judgement. Passage of this bill, which is not based on science, will have a detrimental affect on the women in North Carolina. It will not benefit women's health. It will be detrimental to women's health. Medical decisions must be between a woman and her doctor without legislative interference. I suggest we take the invitation of these physicians and not interfere. Let's reject this motion to concur. Speaker Changes: Mr. President? Speaker Changes: Senator McKissick for what purpose do you rise? Speaker Changes: To speak on the concurrence. Speaker Changes: The Senator has the floor. Speaker Changes: Unfortunately, this bill is coming back to us in a form that's not fundamentally changed from the original bill that we saw, which we considered. In my opinion, it's a further deprivation of rights of women. We still have the language here that basically says no state or local government can offer medical insurance that would offer abortion coverage regardless what they might decide to do locally. There's still language here that basically says when there's a private insurance plan offered over health benefit changes that it cannot offer abortion coverage even though a person might as a matter of personal consciousness to choose to select a health insurance plan that might provide that coverage. They aren't given that option. Yes, Row vs Wade that Supreme Court decision, the only thing it still does is to try in every legal way that is conceivable possible to deprive a woman of that right to choose, that right to make a very personal decision that was predicated upon the right of privacy, which is Constitutionally protected. It's...

[0:00:00.0] …Use to undermine where we wait and everyway that they can including and waiting upon that gender privacy to have a doctor interrogate a woman as the reason for her abortion to determine if it’s based upon the gender of her child. We to go through any of this and I personally think about whether that might be a legitimate reason for someone to accused to go forward that’s a decision that’s based upon that woman’s personal right to make a decision and it’s her own privacy we should not ___[00:31] upon and in terms of regulations is that govern abortion clinics today within the State if anything based upon information that’s come before us we can see that those regulations are effective and that they are working to get there are problem clinics out and those problems are being addressed in a reasonable rational and in effective way. When we look today and what this bill does we only think it comes back this change, it may respects affected if the woman is taking the pill to terminate that pregnancy issue no longer she can take the first pill in the presence of the doctor, the subsequent pill she does not that’s reasonable, that’s rational and should have been the way it would always occurred. And likewise it gives health and human services, the Department of Health and Human Services, the right to come up with these new regulations that will govern abortion clinics but they are still talking about using the same basic standards for ambulatory surgical clinics which would effectively close all the abortion clinics in the State except for one. So, therefore, those limits, those options will be reduced to one clinic as opposed to that 16 or 17 that exists today. We are trussing upon the rights and the options of woman in the state that in my mind is unconstitutional and the goal is simply to under role___[01:53] if we can do so within an environment that they believe it was ___[01:56] scrutiny and with that reason I ask you not to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Members and colleagues, we know that for many of you here you are philosophically perhaps with the spiritually and religiously and politically are opposed to a woman’s right to choose and to choice about her own reproductive rights and freedom even though it is her constitutional right and I believe her human right. We know that and it is disingenuous of you and off course all about playing politics with woman’s lives and with her bodies for you to discuss this political, philosophical maybe spiritual agenda in the guys of protecting woman’s health. Are you restricting woman’s access to reproductive health care in a way that is unacceptable and unsafe and un-healthy and unconstitutional? You have the majority both to do what it is you wanna do. So, why these sneak attacks and sneak approaches to this legislation, why we hear now after this bill is comeback to the house since July 11th, again we are here at 6 o ‘clock the last day of the session hearing this bill on a supplemental calendar when you know that your agenda, your political agenda for woman’s reproductive rights is out of scale with North Carolinians. But it is important to us that you and Governor McCrory know and understand that we do not believe or by this effort discussed that you are working to make woman safer or to protect their rights. Our rights are not protected by you allowing healthcare workers who personally oppose abortion to opt-out a participating in this care even if they are the receptionists, or the ___[04:16] with no exception for whether there is a medical emergency or not, facing the woman who they, in their moment of conscious denying abortion coverage to woman and their families to buy health insurance with their own money is not protecting the health and caring for the health of woman and the safety of woman. Prohibiting cities and towns from offering coverage and their abortion plans to their employees as a part of the compensation for the work of those own employees is not caring for the health of woman and it is discriminating against woman in public employment… [0:04:59.8] [End of file…]

…as against women in private employment. And restricting the access of women to reproductive health services in our state by allowing your political appointees to write the restrictions that will apply to their access to this healthcare is not caring for the rights of women in the state and is indeed restricting our rights. So it is important to us that you know that we are not buying this disguise. Your agenda is clear. And it is clear in the provisions in this bill. And there is nothing in this bill that helps to protect or support the rights of women’s healthcare. This bill completely infringes upon both our human rights and our reproductive rights and we reject that and ask that you vote not to concur with this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think our agenda… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby what…? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m sorry, to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think our agenda is very clear. What have we done this session? I’ve worked very hard over the last few months and I would have liked frankly a great deal more assistance and help in fighting for two important bills. The first was turning pimps into registered sex offenders. The second one was the safe harbor legislation that we just passed. The next was the eugenics… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me Senator Goolsby. Senator Stein, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I earlier tried to get a little bit off topic and was quickly corralled back in. Is this relevant to this legislation or rather is it on point to this legislation? [SPEAKER CHANGES] He just started. Let’s see where he goes. We’ll keep him tight. I gave you all quite a bit of leeway also. Carry on Senator Goolsby. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. The next was the eugenics legislation that the minority party had, as I counted, 81 years to fix, to compensate the individuals who the minority party, which was in power back in 1929 when they authorized the first forced sterilizations and in 1933 when they created the Eugenics Board… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, come on, we need to get on a point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll get back to the point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The fact of the matter is I’d like to read you exactly the portion because there’s a lot of rhetoric that goes on here and I’m trying to figure out why this is not something that actually goes in line with the other things that we’ve done protecting women. The Chiarello law that of course were made fun of for trying to push through to protect women and their children, but let me just look at section 4 (c). It says, “The Department of Health and Human Services shall amend its rules… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President… [SPEAKER CHANGES] …pertaining…” I will not yield for a question until I get finished. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] “The Department of Health and Human Services shall amend its rules pertaining to clinics certified by the Department to be suitable facilities for the performance of abortions in accordance with our law 14-45. 1. “The Department is authorized to provide any requirement for the licensure of ambulatory surgical units to the standard applicable to clinics certified by the Department to be suitable facilities for the performance of abortions. “The rule shall ensure that standards for clinics certified by the Department address the on-site recovery phase of the patient care at the clinic, protect patient privacy, provide quality assurance, and ensure that patients with complications receive the necessary medical attention while not unduly restricting access. “The Department may issue temporary rules in addition to any permanent rulemaking authority to enforce the subsection.” Then it goes into the one line about the oversight committee to study this issue. That’s what we’re talking about. While a protest was going on in Wilmington a couple of three weeks ago on this verbiage, another abortion clinic in North Carolina was closed down, this time I believe it was in Fayetteville where Senator Meredith resides. That’s in addition to an abortion clinic being closed twice in Charlotte, another one in Durham. This is in addition to what we’ve all seen in the news about Dr. Kermit Gosnell operating in a low-income area, an African-American area in Philadelphia where he ran a total shop of horrors that shocked the consciousness. This bill in the long line of things that we have done over this long session, simply attempts to make sure that we protect women. The things I read to you, right there is the sum and substance of what apparently is the complaint that we want to make sure…

I like what occurred in Charlotte where a woman went in for a chemical abortion methotrexate was not put into her body via injection it was drawn out given to her in a cup and she was told to home. She went home came back a month later and she was still pregnant off course methotrexate has to be injected and then she had to undergo a surgical abortion. That clinic suffered the consequences of that through the Department of Health and Human Services. And I just ask the party in the minority what is wrong with reasonable standards that again specifically state protect the privacy, assure quality, provide quality assurance, assure patience with complications receive necessary medical attention. Not unduly restricted medical access. In light of the multiple abortion clinics that have been closed in our state and in light of what we saw going in Philadelphia? What's the matter with a little bit of reason? What's the matter with protecting woman, just like we've tried to do in all the other bills we've put forward that you never bothered to deal with in the past? What's the matter with taking of our women and girls? Thank you, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask Senator Golsby a question.[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator do you have any health background, any training in that area? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ma'am, I'm a trial litigator I've tried a number of medical cases over the years, but I don't have a medical degree, my degrees are in business and law. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Senator? One other question, Senator Golsby. Do you yield? Have you ever witnessed a woman who did not go to an abortion clinic, but whose body was mutilated by coat hangers that some unscrupulous person practiced on her in the streets. Have you ever witnessed that? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, Ma'am, I have not. I did follow the trial of Dr. Gossmell and all of the horrors that he committed on minority women because he had a clinic that wasn't observed and where they weren't protected. I care about women and I think my records very much shows that with my hard fight against sex trafficking in this state and to try to protect them and to that constitutional rights of women and their children are, but if you can show something in here that's not reasonable that is wrong, that is going to hurt women I will not vote for this, I will not vote for this, I'm looking at this section, I care, I want to do what's right, I want see that women are protected, and I'm reading the exact language in here to you, and I'm not finding it offensive. I'm just not finding offensive, Senator. I don't see it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Speak on the field, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I address those questions to Senator Golsby, because I think about Senator Pircell who was here years ago. An he was a provider, he was an OB/GYN, he had taken care of many women in the state, and he had delivered many babies. He worked in the rural part of the state and depressed area. I have health background. I work with woman who seek health services and at his point in time a lot of them don't get them. If it wasn't for some other clinics in the area they would have to rely on unscrupulous people like Senator Golsby talked talked about. But because North Carolina has seen fit to put in place health clinic for women that do have regulations and I would say that those clinics were closed because we already have regulations and we don't need additional legislation. But because North Carolina does have regulations and it has clinics where people can go for health care and for abortions if they deem necessary, that's a woman's choice it's not your choice, that's important part, and let me say a couple of other things about that too. I talk to some of the citizens in my area and one of the men who said, you know, whether I'm for or against abortions, the very nerve of the General Assembly to put it on the motorcycle safety ad, he was appalled. What kind of shenanigans are we playing here? You say you care about women and their health and yet your throw

A bill that is so critical to a woman's health under a nebulous title that has nothing to do with it. It's a charade. If you really cared about women's health, you would ask the women. Now just like what I said before, in 1848 when women didn't have any rights, they also didn't have any rights about their bodies about abuse and there were cases of women that were abused by their husbands, these were white women, cases of women who were abused by their husbands who went to the judge and he would not stop the man from abusing her. All of that came about before women had rights. Rights about their bodies, about voting, about anything, and here we are again. You say you're concerned about women's rights and their health and secure and safe places. Well, if you were so concerned about them you would expand Medicaid, I can give you a few more suggestions in terms of how we can make sure that their place is to take care of health in this state. The bill is not that. The bill in terms of abortion clinics is not dangerous, the bill is dangerous. The bill is dangerous because what it does, it restricts access to the point that the women that I know, some of the women that you're talking about ??. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] From the streets will have to go outside of the traditional health clinic. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Soucek, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Are we allowed to take flash photography? Members, flash photography during speeches, is that in the decorum of the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, we really shouldn't. It was hitting me too. If we'll turn the flash photography off. Senator Robinson, I'm sorry. If you'll please continue. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. But it will prohibit women from having access to certified clinics where there are people who know what they're doing who are trained and they will have to go into the streets. Senator Purcell said that to you several years ago. What we will see in this state because you are denying access to women to go to safe facilities and make the choice about their bodies, and you don't know what happens. You don't know what happens, you can't bear any children. I'm talking to the men. You can't bear any children. You know, maybe we ought to have some things to have some prostate all kinds of other things I can talk a little more about that next time. I'll do a bill. But anyway, you will restrict access for us as women. We don't need you to make choices. There is an article from the Dutton Marker Report that talks about, and this is an author who has done much research on health issues, on issues about sexual reproductivity, sexually transmitted diseases, everything. Well known. And it says that the rationale behind the campaign to single out abortion clinics for special treatment is that abortion is inherently dangerous, however the facts say otherwise. Abortion is an extremely safe medical practice. Less than 0.3% of abortion patients in the United States experience a complication that requires hospitalization, and the article goes on to cite other relevant data, however the risk is going to be when access to abortion clinics is cut off by this General Assembly. That's where the risk will be. We will pick up women off the streets. You won't, because you don't live in the neighborhoods and you don't take care of them and you don't care about them, but that's when the folk that I work with will pick them up off the streets and either take them to a morgue or try to get them to an emergency room because you're denying safe access to health. And in addition to that does come counseling. Sometimes a woman doesn't want it. She thinks maybe she does, but there are people there to counsel and to talk about what has happened. Lots of times there are incestuous issues going on, rape, everything, but they have an opportunity to get the kind of counseling they need and to make good decisions, but you're cutting off access is what you're doing and determining what regulations clinics should have and you don't have the expertise to make that determination. You don't have the expertise in terms of what

Speaker: Is good health care for women because there are lot of other things we should be doing about woman's health care and access in the state and we are doing a very poor job on that finally i have to support senator stern said about the ?? and there some who are survive on the board would come on and who talk about this issue on everyday in terms of what there expertise says they experience how and how this bill really going to be detrimental for the woman's in our state and in all consciousness if you really scared about women and if you really cared about patient safety you wont have this bill the first thing but you certainly vote against it, Speaker Changes: Further discussion further debate senator ?? for what purpose you ask Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill Mr.President, Speaker Changes: The senator has the floor, Speaker Changes: ?? a question please, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? do you yell, Speaker Changes: I yell, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? on page 2 last line on 24 of the bill i see some language does says ?? in providing city insurance employees that council do not provide an abortion coverage greater than that provided by the state health plan for teachers and state employees did you ?? what do you provide abortion coverage under under teacher state employees, Speaker Changes: ?? state health plan currently allows abortion coverage in the case of life insurance and this would merely make the municipal and county heath coverage consistent with that level of follow up Speaker Changes: So admit man dating to local government what kind of heath care they can provide to their employees is that what this does Speaker Changes: This bill would make county and municipal health plans consistent with state health plans yes , Speaker Changes: Thank you, Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill Mr.President, Speaker Changes: The senator has the floor, Speaker Changes: Here we ?? we are debating another very critical issue and looking into the galleries and some of these may city employees or state employees of women they abandoned a night health care or access they provide their own health care for reason in terms of our personal health care and i just think that's dangerous area to get into and we continue our members for hearing years and years local government be shouldn't get involved in all of a sudden session we want to tell local government what to do in terms of everything ?? that will be used on women in the clinic because they cannot get a legal abortion and i know that in previous debate we heard that there will be just one clinic in the state of north Carolina that will meet the requirement and regulations of that has been proposed and that says we are setting up a monopoly ?? we against are limiting access to women why to chose and senator Clark made a very valid point many of us don't support but what we don't support is us what political public servants ?? and their medical providers i know we got them this bill will pass just all the other critical negative ?? but again i just want to remind you that man that ruled over others should rule,

Trying to get up. You have the floor, Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. The three clinics in Charlotte, Durham and Fayetteville were closed under the current regulations, and I was pleased to be a co-sponsor of Senator Goolsby’s trafficking bills. I hope the Governor has a Webster’s Dictionary over in the Capital and that he’ll use it because we’ve already gotten a new definition of revenue neutral this session. I hope the Governor will carefully study the word restrictive because he said last Fall he would veto any abortion regulations that were more restrictive than the currents, and Bill 353 qualifies. And while the Governor’s reading his dictionary, I hope he’ll also study the word commitment because that’s what he made to the women of North Carolina last Fall. [SPEAKER CHANGES] President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to ask Senator Goolsby a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, ma’am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You mentioned about not seeing what was unfair to women in this field so this is a question I want to ask you. Do you think it’s fair to deny a woman in access to insurance coverage, who lives in a county where that county government is willing to provide full reproductive healthcare coverage for her, but yet she cannot purchase that because you oppose her right to choose and within that limit their ability to provide her that insurance? Do you think it’s fair to that woman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ma’am, I understand fully that the Constitution according to our Supreme Court under the privacy right allows women to seek abortions in our country. It does not require anyone, as I understand it, to pay for those other than the person seeking that service, and I would also tell you as far as restricting accesses, which is what you claimed, if everyone would look on the last page of the bill, page 4 line 35, it specifically says that the department is to provide a plan and ensure standards that do not unduly restrict access to abortion. This is a bill about safety. Section 4C is about safety. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow-up, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ask everyone to please, if I can finish answering, to please read that and tell me where there’s anything wrong with protecting women, protecting their patient-privacy, ensuring quality assurance, ensuring patients with complications to receive necessary medical attention. All while not unduly restricting access. There is no requirement here that these be licensed as ambulatory surgical units. It recognizes surgeries goes on here and allows the department to apply requirements as it sees fit for surgical centers. Ma’am, these are surgeries, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with protecting women as long as this bill is followed. And it does not unduly restrict access. That is what it says in the law. Somehow you can’t read the law. It says there on line 36, and I stand by it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, do you yield to a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If she wants to. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’ll stay here as long as you’ll stay here, and fifty percent of the abortions are medical abortions and not surgeries, but my follow-up question is this: Is there any area that you’re aware of where in state law we restrict the kind of healthcare men can get in terms of insurance coverage? Any vision that you’re aware of can cite me to? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ma’am, I’m- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, follow-up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’m just not sure what you’re asking. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you yield to another question, Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Do you think it’s fair that a person working in a healthcare environment, I presume, who because of their conscientious objection to abortion, it is fair for them not to provide a service to a woman when that’s not provided in any other law or healthcare that I’m aware of, and there’s no provision in this bill that the provider, where that person works, has to ensure that there’s somebody there that will provide this service, or that service will not be provided and an alternative be provided in case of emergency? It is definitely, to me, a clear there that the conscientious objection to abortion is considered superior to the right of the woman coming for healthcare in that situation.

That difference and do you think that's fair to woman seeking healthcare? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ma’am, our people believe that the fetus is a person and to force another human being to take what they believe the life I think would be a travesty to our entire idea of constitutional government. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A follow-up, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, do you yield follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any other area of the law that you’ll aware of where we allow a person who because of their conscientious objection not to provide service, a healthcare service to someone for a procedure and health care that they have a constitutional right for that we'll allow them not to provide that service or provide some alternative for that care in case of that objection, that conscientious objection. Are you aware of that in any other arena? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'm not aware of anything in the law that requires one person to take what they believe the life of another. No, ma'am. There are people that believe that would be wrong and be taking the life of another person, and I do believe that is a cutout of this type of situation that is understandable of people of faith that believe that way and is something that we should work very hard to make sure we don't force people to take those types of action when they consciouslly object. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One last question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise, For what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, we've heard a lot about choice in this debate today. Do you have any other, are you aware of any other requirements in insurance policy where taxpayer funds would be required for any other elective procedure, such as plastic surgery or elective procedures people choose in their healthcare and are not mandated? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I am not aware of any of those types of elective procedures mandated whether it's plastic surgery or something else that you might want to choose on your own that not everyone chooses. No, I'm not aware of that, Senator Hise. That's a good point. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant what approach do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have a final follow-up question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Goolsby, do you believe that a person's conscientious objection or conscious objection or religious objection or whatever it is to abortion supercedes a woman's constitutional right to make that choice about her healthcare? Do you believe the objection is superior to the constitutional right? Well, we hold these truths to be self-evident that are men are required equal and die by their creator with certain unalienable rights. Those being life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And for a person who believes that life is supreme and that a fetus is a person to ask them to act in a way that would take that person's life, I would think to be wrong and would stand against many hundreds of years of western jurisprudence and legal theories and thoughts. I don't think that we should ever enforce a uh by state law to have to perform an abortion procedure. There are plenty of people that are willing to do that. Folks of consciousness just like we have people that don't want to go to war and kill a fellow man, because their belief is that's murder. There are people likewise are the same way about abortion. And I don't think they should be forced to commit that. And I just think that is a wrongful thing to ask someone to do of conscience who believes another way. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thank you Mr. President. I'd like to speak to Second Town. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. It is very clear to me that there are people who are pursuing this schema here in this bill who believe their objection of abortion is superior to a woman's constitutional right to have that choice and that is unconstitutional which is the point we're making. And these same people will be on this commission who will be making these rules ?? that risk access. And yes this is about fairness. It's about fairly addressing the balance between the objection which I support as I strongly support a woman's right to that choice. Both are equally valid and equally superior in the law and in constitutional terms. And there are provisions of this bill that violate that and that don't care for women who are seeking

To exercise that constitutional right, such as letting a janitor or a receptionist because they object to abortion not do their job and sign the person in or provide whatever service would need to be provided at the health center where the woman shows up. That is not caring for women and that is not being fair on this issue, and that is the point I'm making and to me that level of unfairness, even if you disagree with it it ought to be clearly heard. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Graham, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the motion to concur. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman of the Senate, here we are again discussing access. Last couple minutes it was to the voting booth and now for women who have a constitutional right to receive a medical procedure. That procedure is a private zone to me. It should be for that woman and her family, her pastor, maybe a close friend, but there's certainly no room for the GOP in that circle. It's a private decision guaranteed by the constitution. ?? early in this chamber, and I don't mean to be negative every time I stand up to speak, but it's been a cruel and unusual session for me based on the many laws that were originated in this chamber that impact the citizens of North Carolina and those I represent. And certainly this bill is not different. It restricts access. It puts again artificial barriers in place that really outlaws abortion in this state. The standards that are in place in this bill reduces access. I think it makes only one clinic in the state based on the new rules and regulations and I think the new rules are, the rules that are currently in place are working well as evident of closings in Charlotte and Durham and Fayetteville. Existing rules. Why we are adding more is just yet another example of national politics, national schemes, coming to North Carolina. Voting, healthcare and a number of others I can quote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That starts across the country. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will the Senator yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, thank you, ma'am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That starts across the country and finds its way in Raliegh. So I am again just concerned about my state and concerned about those individuals who find themselves in a situation where they're contemplating this, and it's a right that's protected by the constitution but their state government once again is putting hurdles and barriers along the way. It is not right. It is not fair, and it's disguised again in this bills, I think it was freedom and what was the original bill name? It was the 4th of July, Freedom, Faith and something on the 4th of July week. Freedom? Faith? No. That's not what it is. It's just a disguise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none, the question before the, Senator Newton. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll be brief and I will try to keep my remarks under control. Unfortunately in the last long debate

Senator Parmon and I had a few words of disagreement, I was certainly embarrassed. I don’t want to re-litigate that this is a passionate subject that a lot of people feel very strongly about and we’ve heard a lot of passionate words from the other side of the aisle, a lot of questions, some of those questions started to get my dander up. Senator Robinson I was tempted to pop up and ask you a question, you if you have ever been present for a late term abortion. I didn’t think that was appropriate, that was inflammatory obviously you have never been there for that great grotesque procedure, that wasn’t a good idea. My discretion got a hold of me and I calmed down. What is this bill really about? What is this motion to concur about? This bill we’ve debated for a couple of days earlier in this session; we heard in committee, now it’s back before us, after all the hearings and debates that have occurred in the House. This bill is about restricting abortion for sex selection, this bill says you no longer can have an abortion if you want to choice the sex of your child. That is what this bill says, that’s how it’s restricting your abortion, your right to choose. You don’t get to choose what gender you want your child to be and that child has to lose their life because it’s the wrong one. It says you don’t get to abort babies because they are females but somehow the back row thinks that’s attacking women. Now we’ve heard a lot of lectures about Senator Nesbit, most especially this session, about how us and the majority are not listening, that we’re not listening to the people; that the people come down here and protest and we’re not listening. We’ll folks, except for a few extreme people who really think you should do anything you want on abortion, because they don’t believe it’s a life. I don’t know many people that think that you should abort a child because it’s the wrong sex, even pro-choice people that I know don’t agree with that. Because we are restricting we are restricting abortion in this way we are going to send people off to coat hangers. This bill says that because so many people in the state of North Carolina oppose tax payer funding of abortions, that we are not going to allow tax payer dollars to be used to subsidize insurance policies to pay for abortions except for when the life of the mother, rape and incest. Most people I know think that’s appropriate, tax payers shouldn’t pay for abortions except possibly in those situations, that’s what this bill does. Senator Bryant my good friend, I’ve enjoyed debates with you and this has been a healthy one, but I most point out, in my view, the absurdity of the argument that you were making in regards to forcing healthcare workers to perform abortions or participate in the performing of abortions that they don’t agree with. What you essentially said was that this right to an abortion that was created by Rowe Vs Wade allows a woman to force someone who doesn’t believe in abortion to participate in it. I don’t know anybody that thinks that’s a good idea, I am sure there’s some people that do and as I pointed out in the last speech on this subject when we look at the board we will see some folks that think that healthcare workers should be made to participate in the performing of an abortion despite that they believe that’s the killing of a child. That’s wrong! I don’t know how that restricts a woman’s right to have an abortion. To tell my child or my sister or somebody that I know in healthcare that doesn’t believe in abortion that they have to participate in that is wrong, that’s wrong!

I thought Senator Goolsby did an excellent job of reading the bill and pointing out the lines to us that showed that the regulations that we’re asking, the rules that we’re asking to be created, not unduly restrict access to abortion. I thought that made an excellent point of saying, we just want these clinics to be clean. We want them to be safe. We want the health care workers who are willing to perform abortions to understand what they’re doing so they don’t give a woman chemotherapy drugs orally instead of injecting them because they don’t know what they’re doing. That’s all we’re asking for in this bill. There’s no clinic that’s going to be closed down over this. The back row has done an excellent job of the talking points for the impending litigation that they intend to file. All because we want these clinics to be safe and don’t want North Carolina to be in the national media like Philadelphia was because that clinic was never inspected. I believe I’m correct in saying these rules are going to be require these clinics to be inspected at least once a year, if I remember correctly. This is a good bill. This is common sense. Senator Nesbitt, these are the kinds of rules that the vast majority of North Carolinians want us to have. If we’re going to have abortion, we want it to be under the right circumstances. If we have to have it. Last time I checked, very recently, the majority of folks in this country, and I daresay in this state, are pro-Life anyway. They don’t agree with abortion. And while they may not want to say that nobody can ever have one under any circumstances, especially in the case of rape and incest, they do want it to be rare. They don’t want to have to pay for it. They don’t want to make people who don’t believe in it participate in it. And God forbid, they don’t want people to have abortions because of the gender of the child. I commend the bill to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion and debate. Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I am beginning to understand why you don’t like lawyers. I apologize to you for derogatory statements I made to you when you cussed them. This beats anything that I've ever seen. All of a sudden, anybody that opposes the point of view up there is somebody that wants late term abortions and they want surreal ? That’s what we heard the last time, and they want motorcycle helmets in this bill. You just blame them for everything you stuck in this bill. You put it in there to hide the real purpose of this bill. I don’t know how to tell you this, but choice and a woman’s right to control her health belongs to the women who want to exercise that right. You don’t go over and ask the opinion of lawyers who are on the other side of the issue what they’re entitled to. When I tell you you aren't listening, it’s not your business to tell them what’s good for them and what’s bad for them. They don’t want your opinion. They didn't ask for your opinion. They don’t need your opinion. They know what you’re doing. They've got it figured out. It’s not hard to figure it out. Just track it through the other states. This same things been done all over this country and everywhere they’re shutting down clinics all over the United States. For those of you who are so passionate about having these really high quality places, put some money in the budget and build some. We’d love that. In the meantime, how about letting women who have a place to access

…healthcare get it. It’s not just abortions. It’s mammograms. It ’s cervical screenings. It’s everything else that women need and you are shutting these clinics where they can’t get anything. I just want to kind of carry you, if you wonder why these people are so upset with you, I am going to explain it to you. We started out at 8:00 at night on July the second downstairs when there are only 3 women in the building to fight you. The three on the back row, and they fought. [Speaker Change] Will Senator Nesbitt yield for a question? [Speaker Change] No I won’t yield. And they fought, and they did the best they could. And I told you help was on the way, and I wanted to see how you handled 10,000 of them. Well it didn’t take but 500 of them and you called everybody with a badge and a gun in this town to protect you. The 10,000 are coming to the election. That’s where you are going to see them. They are not going to take this off of you. I looked here today, and I just happened to pull this up and I am going to paraphrase this cartoon because it’s pretty good. With the problems y’all have had with the governor lately, you’re probably going to enjoy it too. It has a newscaster there, and says in other news a real case of voter fraud was finally revealed in North Carolina. It has Pat McCrory there with his hand…?? [Speak Change] ??Point of order ?? ?? Point of Order??debating the bill?? [Speaker Change] ??say again?? [Speaker Change] Debating the bill? [Speaker Change] Yes sir. [Speaker Change] I think he is reading a cartoon, isn’t he sir? [Speaker Change] And I am tying it to this bill. I am going to explain that to you in a minute. [Speaker Change] Move it along quickly please. [Speaker Change] I am looking forward to that creative effort. Ok. [Speaker Change] He says voter fraud has been discovered and it has Pat McCrory standing up with his hand up making a promise with his fingers crossed. When he was asked when he was campaigning, what would you sign? Will you sign any further restrictions? None. Now it doesn’t take a lawyer to interpret that word. That means none. So when the bill comes out of here, he says I am a man of my word. I am not signing that. He meets with crowd over across the hall for about ten minutes, makes a deal. [Speaker Change] Mr. President? [Speaker Change] The next morning they roll out a bill. [Speaker Change] Senator Soucek , what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] Point of order. [Speaker Change] State your point of order. [Speaker Change] I was speaking about another branch of government related to this bill. [Speaker Change] I am talking about this bill. [Speaker Change] Senator [Speaker Change] Let’s go on. Keep going. [Speaker Change] Just tolerate me a moment and I will be done. [Speaker Change] Senator Nesbitt has been doing it 10 years. I love you. Go ahead. [Speaker Change] Well they meet about ten minutes and they roll the bill out. He says now I fixed it and now I can sign it. They didn’t change but a couple of words in the thing. Now he might think that all those women are fooled. They are not fooled. They know what he did. I am not here to tell you, y’all can’t do this. You’ve got absolute power. You control it all. You can do anything you want to. This goes both ways. There is a little old saying. It says, I can tell you, but I can’t make you understand. We are trying to tell you and I can’t make you understand, but I am going to promise you, what you are telling these women, whose rights you are impinging on, they aren’t going to understand. This is just one more thing that you have done that’s going to drive people to the polls to make a change in this state. [Speaker Change] Senator Berger for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. President. To speak on the motion. [Speaker Change] The Senator has the floor. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. President. Members of the Senate, we have had probably more debate on this particular issue than I think anything else since I have been in the General Assembly. We have had two full days before and we have had if not a full day, certainly what for some folks seem like an eternity for the last hour and 15 minutes…

So, I don’t know that anything I say will change anyone’s mind. I don’t know that it’s appropriate for me to prolong this any longer and so I ask you to vote in favor of the motion. I think the reasons for that have been stated by a number of people, and ask that we move forward with that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Hearing no further discussion or debate, the question before the Senate is concurrence with the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 353. All in favor will vote Aye. Any opposed vote No. You will have five seconds to be allowed for the voting. The clerk will count the votes. [PAUSE] Senate Bill 353, House Committee Substitute motion to concur passes, 32 in favor and 13 in the negative. It will be enrolled and sent to the Governor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bruntstetter, to what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement and then two motions, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the rules committee, there will be a rules committee and Mr. President that’d be in the regular location? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, downstairs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rules Committee meeting at 8:15 in the regular location. The bills to be considered will be House Bill 1023, the adjournment resolution, and House Bill 618, amend the firearm restoration law, and that’ll be at 8:15. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motions, sir? [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that House Bill 938, which is improve wetlands mitigation, which is in the ag committee, be removed from ag and re-referred to the rules committee. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Mr. President, I move that the Senate stand in recess until 8:30. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay let me hold that motion just a second, please. Everybody hold your seats, please. Courtesies of the gallery. To a special visitor, Senator Clark sends forth, his daughter just landed and we’d love to see her. Where is she? If she’ll stand up. [APPLAUSE] Welcome. [APPLAUSE] I promise you, we normally don’t act like this all the time. So welcome to North Carolina, from California. We hope you stay with us. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Berger. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion for recess, I would ask that that be subject to the receipt of committee reports, the re-referral of bills, the resolutions and receipt of messages from the House and Governor, the ratification of bills, the appointment of conferees and the receipt of conference reports. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I thought I heard Senator Bruntstetter say that but I must have missed it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And Mr. President just one more thing. I just found out that House 938 which we just moved to rules will be the third bill that you’ve been looking for, that we’re going to hear down to rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Senator Nesbitt, I see you stand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Democrats will meet in the caucus room upon recess. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, we’ll see you at 8:15. [PAUSE] ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate will come to order. Close the doors. Ladies and gentlemen, before we get started here, there’s someone I’d like for us all to give a big round of thanks to. If you notice, there’s a young lady over here, a page, who has volunteered to stay here and work, and she has worked here all day, all week, and her name is Jordan Keys, from Raleigh. Senator Hunt’s page. Jordan. [APPLAUSE] Jordan, thank you so much. And Senator Hunt’s getting very old, so one day he’ll need someone to take his seat. So hurry up and get to 25, we’d love to have you back. Thank you again. And come back and see us. Senator McKissick, you’re walking kind of slow. Come on now. There you go. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Barringer, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make a motion to change a vote plea. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State your motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to change my vote on House Bill 74 to Yes, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, you all right with that? Without objection, so ordered. [PAUSE] Make it 29 in favor and 17 in the negative.

[0:00:00.0] Okay, alright we have two, we have lost two Senators, Senator Bingham has an excuse to absence and Senator Brett’s wife gonna into labor and he has at home so let’s think about that. [Applause] I just feel somebody, someone has to marry Senator Brett well that’s another story. Alright, let’s get started, the conference report for adoption Senate Bill 287. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 287: Notice Publication - Guilford Co. Local Govs. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade explains the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President, this is similar to basically what was passes before but it only include two counties now Guilford and Mecklenburg and it’s definitely a local bill. I ask you to vote for adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Discussion and debate on the conference report. Hearing none the question before the body is the adoption of the conference report for the House Committee Substitute to Senate Bill 287, all those in favor will vote aye, all oppose vote no, five seconds be allow for the voting, the clerk will record the vote. Clerk no, ___[01:40]aye, ___[01:48] aye, Stein no, Gram aye, Harman no, Senator Bryant no, Senate ___[02:00] no, Senator Ford changed his mind and went no, Senator Gram and Philip Dominic went no, okay we are good, alright, 25 having voted in the favor and 16 in the negative the conference report for Senate Bill 287 passes and the house will be notified, the conference report, Senate Bill 317. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 317: Guilford and Stanley Election Systems. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Wade again to explain the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President, what this basically does is lineup the school board district with the county commission district that was put in place in the last election cycle in the way it was before the redistrict in last which would line the school board member with the County Commissioner which would aid in making decisions based on schools and what the Commissioner could do to help and they can work much better together and I would ask for your support in adoption. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Robinson what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would ask you to oppose it the Guilford County School Board vote by resolution unanimously to oppose the change and we even heard the other night from citizens, in Pleasant Garden citizens all across Guilford County are asking us why do we want to make the school board partisan when they feel that it works well as it is? So, I would ask for you to oppose it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion and debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McLaurin what purpose you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President and members of the Senate I agree with Senator Robinson, I represent Stanley County in the General Assembly and their County Commissioner’s I know Representative Berg has worked hard to come up with a plan to change the number of County Commissioners and school board members but the County Commissioners on a three to two vote asked that we oppose and to leave the current size of their board of five members and this would change their Board Of Commissioners to seven. So, I would ask you to vote no on this, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Senator Wade what purpose you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again, I will ask for your support on this for his adoption, this is what the citizens certainly want and it’s not based on what the ___[04:57] is based on what the citizens that we represent… [0:04:58.8] [End of file…]

Speaker1: …and I am sure I can speak for Representative Burr, I just talked with him, and he would ask for your support also. Mr. President: Further discussion or debate? Senator Ford, for what purpose do you rise? Speaker 2: Mr. President to see if the lady will yield for a question. Mr. President: Senator will you yield? Speaker 1: I will. Speaker 2: Ma’am, can you share with us how you know what the citizens want? Speaker 1: Yes sir I can. I have been contacted by a lot of citizens. When we passed this bill before, on redistricting, I went over that, but I can go over it again. Basically, what happened was that I have citizens call and talk to me about the school board, and that they can never get another person elected. At first, I didn’t really… I thought, well, you know, maybe they… the reason we don’t have any contested elections, and in the general election there is not more than one that there is a contest in – everybody else does not have any opposition. So I took a look and in our rural counties, whoever runs for the large position and wins, never really picks up any of the rural counties – they always vote for an opponent, if there is one. So basically their views, in the rural area, don’t ever seem to be represented because they can’t beat out the urban areas because there are more people voting their. They are absolutely right: there isn’t any chance of them getting someone that represents their views. Mr. President: Any follow up Senator Wade? Follow up? She yields. Speaker 2: Madam do you have any formal or any organization help in determining the number of citizens, or is this your own anecdotal evidence you are using to justify this bill? Speaker 1: Senator, all I can tell you is that since this bill has been out there I have had the most opposition from our newspaper, and the next is from the school board, and after that, I have had maybe ten emails where three were for it and seven were against it out of our whole county - out of 500,000 people. Mr. President: For what purpose do you rise? Speaker 3: To ask Senator Ford a question. Mr. President: Senator Ford, you have a question. Speaker 4: For the gentleman, any time. Speaker 3: This is a local bill, what district do you represent? Speaker 4: Sir, I represent District 38. Speaker 3: That’s nowhere near Gilford County, is it? Speaker 4: Actually it’s in McClemburgh. Speaker 3: That’s what I thought. Okay. Mr. President: Any further discussion or debate? Senator Raven , for what purpose do you rise? Speaker 5: To ask the sponsor a question. Mr. President: Senator Wade, do you yield? Sponsor: Sir, I do. Speaker 5: When we listened all day today to all the other conversations, did you think of challenging where people’s data came from? Sponsor: No sir I didn’t. Speaker 5: That’s what I thought. I agree with you and what you are saying, and support the bill, and ask everyone else to. Thank you. Mr. President: Senator Robinson, for what purpose do you rise? Speaker 6: To ask Senator Wade a question or two. Mr. President: Senator Wade, do you yield? Senator Wade: I do. Speaker 6: Senator Wade, you mentioned rural counties: is Pleasant Garden a rural town? Senator Wade: The precincts in that area, yes ma’am they are. Speaker 6: Follow up Mr. Chair? Mr. President: Follow up Senator Wade? Speaker 6: Senator Wade, you and I went to, in fact, we were the only two out of our delegation, at a townhall meeting in Pleasant Garden, a couple of weeks or so ago, Would you share what the citizens… was that a question from them, or was there some opposition that night? Senator Wade: Yes I believe there was some and after discussion that night, and when I was leaving that night, several came up to me saying they understood. We talked to maybe fifteen or twenty citizens out of the whole county at that meeting. Speaker 6: Okay. No other questions Senator Wade – but a second time to talk on that bill? Mr. President: Senator has the floor. Go ahead. Speaker 6: [laughing] I am kind of weary too. I do want to say Pleasant Garden, where I live, is very rural. It does have some rural representation and at our townhall meeting the other night, without invitation, the citizens did ask the question and did complain. That complaint came from those citizens in that room, and I think there were about fifty in that room. They did say – we are working together in Gilford county; we are rural; we do not understand why this is necessary. So the citizens are not supporting this. We knew the citizens of Greensborough were not in favor, but we did hear from those in the county as well.

Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question for the body is the adoption of the conference report to Senate Bill 317. All those in favor will vote aye, any opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will tabulate the votes. Thirty having voted in the affirmative, 14 in the negative, conference report for Senate Bill 317 is adopted, and the House will be notified. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I have three calendar motions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, state your motions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, Senate Bill 127 is on the supplemental calendar, Economic Development Modifications. I move it be removed from the supplemental calendar and re-referred to the Committee on Rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 652, Modified Judicial Disciplines, in the Committee on Rules. I move that it be removed from the Committee on Rules and brought to the floor and placed on the calendar after Senate Bill 571. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Joint Resolution 1023, Adjournment Resolution, is on the calendar. I ask that it be placed at the end of this calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I may have to object to that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection so ordered. Senator Hartsell has an excused absence. House Bill 938. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 938. Clarify Wetlands Permitting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Members of the Senate, we've seen this bill before, but it was in the Farm Act, and we got it passed out of the Senate 48 to nothing, and then it was passed out of the House Ag Committee unanimous, and then when I got it to the House Judiciary B, they took out the language that is here, and this is concerning the wetlands and the isolated wetlands. Now, this does not alter the purpose or the requirements of the federal wetland program, and while this language will not repeal the Isolated Wetland Rule, it will clarify that DENR may not require permits for activities in wetlands that are not waters of the U.S. and therefore not covered by the Clean Water Act. This language will not affect the current requirements for Section 404 permit issued by Corps of Engineers, or Section 401 certification issued by DENR. This language simply fits the clarification found in the EMC's rules, in the statute, wetlands classified as waters are restricted to waters of the United States. And this language also states that no permit shall be required for activities in wetlands that are not waters of the United States. And I would appreciate your support and be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion and debate? Senator Hunt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What's the distinction of waters of the United States? The water of the United States is the water of the United States, right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Waters of the United States is actually contiguous waters, from what I understand, like rivers and streams. But it is not isolated, which means that they're not connected. Like you might have a half acre here that is not connected to a half acre, you know, 150 yards away. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] So a pond here and a pond there, not connected, they are not waters of the United States? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct, yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Senator Jackson will yield to a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Did you say that this is the current regulation of the Environmental Management Commission or of DENR? I couldn't remember what you said. Does this definition exist somewhere else in state law and you're moving it into statute? [SPEAKER CHANGES] This exists in the federal state laws. It doesn't exist in our current state laws, and that's what we're trying to do is make a mirror there. Basically, yes that's the answer to your question. I was going to try and get back to Senator Hunt's question. I found the definition of waters of the U.S., but go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up, Senator Stein? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If we didn't put this in there, into the statutes, and you were affecting

Senator: … a wetland that was not waters of the United States, what would you be required to do now that we are…., since we are taking the definition out, we know that you won’t be required to do that. Senator: To respond Mr. President, we are not actually taking the definition out. What we are saying is that donor does not have to issue a permit for these isolated wetlands, i.e. if you have say a half acre, or 1/3 acre or a tenth of an acre, or even a milhold per se, and it is not connected to another half acre, or 1/3 acre or a tenth of an acre, or milhold per se, they are not actually wetlands of the U.S. and the federal government does not actually regulate them so we are asking that the donor does not require a permit for them as well. Senator: I think it is becoming clear now – no further questions. Speaker: Senator, for follow up? Senator: Yes sir, what you are saying is that today, under current law, donor does issue permits and that does make it… Senator: That is correct. Senator: I lied – one more follow up. Senator: One more time Senator Jackson. Senator: Has Deener made this request? Senator: No they have not. Speaker: Senator Mayer for what purpose do you rise? Senator: To debate the bill. Speaker: Senator has the floor to debate the bill. Senator: I have heard from people who are knowledgeable that this is not something we want to be changing in our policy. Many wetlands that appear to be isolate from surface waters are actually vital components of regional water systems since they reach local and [xx]. In addition, many of the functions are performed by so called isolate wetlands because they have no so called surface outflow, isolated wetlands serve as protection against flooding as well as drought. They are very necessary for water purification. [Excuse me, I am trying to get this machine to work, which it is not doing.] It is very important for water purification, for wildlife habitat, and actually, the permitting has no effects whatsoever on agricultural activities, and I urge you to vote against this. Speaker: Senator, for what purpose do you rise? Senator: Will the bill’s sponsor yield for a question? Speaker: Senator Jackson yields. Senator: Thank you Mr. President. You said you found the definition of waters of the U.S. would you kindly share that with us please? Senator: Water means any stream, river, brook, lake, swamp, bay, creek, reservoir, waterway, or other body, or accumulation of water whether on the surface or underground, public or private, natural or artificial, that is contained in or flows through or borders any portion of this state, including any portion of the Atlantic Ocean, over which the state has jurisdiction. Wetlands classified as water are restricted to waters of the U.S. Speaker: Follow up? Senator: Follow up, yes. If there are two… I heard lake in there. Does this apply to lakes? Where are we with lakes? Senator: It is my understanding, Senator Barringer, that it has to…they have to be connected: if there is a water that runs into a lake – that is considered waters of the U.S.; but if it is an isolated body of water, whether it be a mudhole, or whether it be a couple of acres, that is not connected to another body of water, that is an isolated wetland. Senator: Thank you Mr. President. Speaker: Senator for what purpose do you rise? Senator: To speak a second time on the bill. Speaker: Senator has the floor. Senator: I would like to point out that NC state law defines waters of the state protected from pollution and unmitigated destruction to include wetlands – means any swamp or other body or accumulation of water, whether it be surface or underground, that is contained in or flows through any portion of this state. This has been upheld by both the NC Court of Appeals and the NC Supreme Court that these are wetlands of the state and should be protected. Speaker: Senator Gunn, for what purpose do you rise? Senator: Just need to clarify to speak to the bill tonight. Speaker: Senator has the floor. Senator: Just want to clarify that this will not repeal the isolated wetland rule.

I will clarify that Deaner may not require permit for activities in wetlands that are not part of the US and are therefore not covered by the clean water act. This is a good common sense bill, and I appreciate your support. [Speaker Changes] Any further discussion or debate? Senator Woodard what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Changes] Question for the bills sponsor [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson, he yields [Speaker Changes] Thank you [Speaker Changes] You're welcome [Speaker Changes] Thank you for yielding Senator Jackson [Speaker Changes] Could you just again clarify for me Deaner's position on this bill? [Speaker Changes] Deaner is not in favor of this bill. They would be in favor of some type of agreement to work it out, but we have not come to that yet, so we decided to go ahead to run this bill while we are in this section. [Speaker Changes] And then Deaner's reaction is just going to be [Speaker Changes] Follow up [Speaker Changes] I'm sorry. So they'll just implement it, or they'll just work it out later [Speaker Changes] Well I assume they'll implement it If we make it state law, I hope they will [Speaker Changes] Well I understand that, Alright thank you, I've got my answer [Speaker Changes] Mr. President [Speaker Changes] Senator McKissick, what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Changes] Can I ask Senator Jackson a question? [Speaker Changes] He yields [Speaker Changes] Senator Jackson, what is the permitting process consist of today for these questionable areas which is apparently some ambiguity even though it seems to me it's pretty clear what these wetlands consist of. What are they due today? What is the process? What is the procedure? What does one have to go through? I'm familiar with wetland permits in coastal areas, I'm not as familiar with wetland permits in non coastal areas, kind of inland areas, what is this today, in terms of what Deaner is doing? [Speaker Changes] Senator McKissick I cannot answer that question. I do not know what the process is to get a permit is to get a permit for this. [Speaker Changes] Follow-up Mr. President [Speaker Changes] He takes a follow-up, go ahead [Speaker Changes] ??? [Speaker Changes] Sentaor Jackson, in light of the fact that Deaner is not supportive of this measure, you're not clear what the permitting procedures are, would it not be in our best interest to hold this over to the short session to deal with it at that time, as opposed to perhaps to taking a vote on it tonight when we, there seems to be quite a bit of ambiguity that perhaps could be resolved with further study and evaluation. [Speaker Change] Senator McKissick that would be your opinion but that would not be my opinion. My opinion would be that we have spoken with Deaner on this several times and we have not have any language from them that would represent what we're trying to accomplish here so I would recommend we pass this bill and then work it out. [Speaker Change] Quick follow-up Mr. President [Speaker Change] Follow-up [Speaker Change] No Sir [Speaker Change] Senator Gunn, what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] Once again, let me tell that the rule exceeds the federal guidelines, if you remember, we have the past regulatory form, trying to bring our rules consistent with the federal guidelines, this is a good common sense rule, it protects our water, we still have the clean water act, we need to support this, Thank you. [Speaker Change] Mr. President [Speaker Change] Senator Kinnaird, what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] To ask Senator Jackson a question [Speaker Change] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [Speaker Change] Yes, sir, I can't turn down Senator Kinnaird [Speaker Change] Did I hear you say Deaner is opposed to this bill? [Speaker Change] Their opposed to the way it's written, yes ma'am, I'm not going to tell you a story. [Speaker Change] 2nd Question [Speaker Change] Follow up, Senator Jackson [Speaker Change] Yes, Sir [Speaker Change] Is the secretary of Deaner a Republican? [Speaker Change] He is [Speaker Change] 3rd Question [Speaker Change] Follow up again Senator Jackson [Speaker Change] Is the assistant security, who is a former house member, who said at one point, he said he had Deaner marked a bulls-eye marked on his, is he also a Republican? [Speaker Change] Senator Kinnaird, I really misspoke, when I said Secretary Skivaro was a republican because I haven't looked up the registrations of either one of them, but I assume he is. [Speaker Change] Senator Rabin, for what purpose do you rise? [Speaker Change] Ask the bill sponsor a s question, please [Speaker Change] Senator Jackson, do you yield? [Speaker Change] Yes sir [Speaker Change] Everybody knows I'm new here, and I'm looking to senior members for guidance, am I mistaken when I say that we legislate and that Deaner, and it's just sorta the way it goes? [Speaker Change] That's my understanding

Got the answer. That's what I thought. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. Alrighty. Any further questions or debate. Hearing none, the question before the body is the passage of House Bill 938 on its second reading. All those in favor vote aye. Any opposed vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting, and the clerk will record the vote. 28 having voted in the affirmative. 14 in the negative. House Bill 938 passes second reading, and without objections [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, change my vote from yes to no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Clark goes from yes to no. And Senator Tillman has an excused absence. 27 in affirmative. 15 in the negative. House Bill 938 passes the second reading, and without objection, will be read a third time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] North Carolina ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any further discussion or debate. Hearing none, all in favor of the passage of House Bill 938 on its third reading will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [MANY VOICES] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Opposed no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [MANY VOICES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I think the ayes have it, and it passes its third reading, and will be sent to the House. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth the rules committee report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth your report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for the rules and operation of the Senate committee, submits the passage House Bill 112. Committee substitute number one, unfavorable as to bill, but favorable as to committee. Substitute bill as amended, entitled an act to make technical, clarifying, and other modifications to the current operations and capital improvements appropriations act of 2013 and to related legislation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, the bill just read in, can we go ahead and place it on the calendar after House Bill 652? That ought to give some time to get it scanned in. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. Okay, that'll take us down to [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Who we got? Senator Rabin, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Change my vote on Senate Bill 321 from aye to no, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered. ?? 29 in the affirmative 16 in the negative. Senate Bill 571 conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 571 authorize various special plates. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Hise is recognized to explain the report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President and members of the Senate. As I will begin to say that I'm a stand in for Senator Brock on this conference report, moving in due to his absence to leave. What this conference report does, after we brought it over from the House, is we have added to the free plates, which include free registration and fees, three special plate authorizations. The bronze star medal for valor recipients and the recipients of the silver star awards. I will say that Senator Rabin will be able to address those questions much better than I can in moving in this area. For the important parts, we have added 200 individuals signing up for the plates as additional requirements to have what are considered the full color plates within this state. And we have required the non-full color plates the name of the state as well as others are of a high contrast and reflective with the background, so they can be read easily. Most importantly, I will say, for the 50 thousand individuals in the state of North Carolina that have the Blue Ridge Parkway and the Great Smoky Mountains plate, this preserved those plates moving forward and the 100 thousand of them that live in my district, so I'd appreciate y'all's support on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt, I think you heard that last statement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I would like to debate this conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, there are a lot of great things we've accomplished in the last few years that we've been here, and one of the main reasons is because we always did them for the right reasons.

I hate to stand up and tell you, but I’m embarrassed about this particular Bill. First time I've been embarrassed by anything we’ve been involved with in this Senate, in this general assembly. Some of you were here the last session. We actually found a way to solve a problem that started many years back and if Senator Clodfelter were here or Senator Jenkins, Senator Hoyle. A problem that occurred a number of years back that they regretted, but never could find the strength to solve was to get rid of these full colored plates. They’ve expanded. They’ve become up to a number of forty. Now your going to say, “Well, isn’t it nice how North Carolina's got forty plates plus a basic first and flight plate?” The problem we've got here and what we had at the time when we finally found a solution to this and phased-out these full colored plates was a phase-out that we could finally get an agreement on. Actually, it was the last Bill we passed the last session, and we had it solved. Senator Rabin and I and Senator Harrington worked very hard to get this problem resolved and many people on both sides of the isle were supportive of it. Unfortunately, we sent a good Bill over to the House. They overturned, or actually changed the way these phase-outs of the multi colored plates were supposed to be. And, in essence, what happened is we lost the opportunity, if this Bill passes, to phase-out these plates. People will say, “Well, why do you want to do that?” Well, first of all ladies and gentlemen, the law enforcement officers of this state at that time and even today said that they’re just very challenging to read. A couple of the biggest culprits are the Smoky Mountain plate and the Blue Ridge Parkway plate. The officers told us and Senator Rabin and Senator Harrington will say when we discussed with them, well what would you do? Their answer was this was a compromise plate with one stipulation that you should be able to read it. And, I showed them the plate and they said, "Well, there's a concern. We can't read it well in the daytime and you can't even begin to read it at night." What that means ladies and gentlemen is it is a safety issue for the law enforcement people that are in the field, across the state, that think that we have, that they hope that we have their backs. And unfortunately, we're letting them out on this one. We're not giving them what they need. And what we're doing with this Bill, is supporting the fat cat drivers who like to have these forty colored plates decorating their automobiles. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have about thirty more seconds. You'll be... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oh no, that's not true. I want as much time as you gave Graham. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt's going to have all the time he needs. You go ahead. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [LAUGHING] [SPEAKER CHANGES] And in this situation, those forty colored plates are a real safety hazard for the law enforcement officers. I know a number of members of this Senate body have come to me and talked and they said, "Well, you know those colored plates? They're a real problem for another reason and that is because of the fact that criminals like to hide behind those colored plates cause nobody, either criminal or drug dealers, cause nobody can identify where they're state is." I'd hate to be a law enforcement officer on a dark road, coming up and not know what I'm walking into, where I didn't even know that was a North Carolina plate. Could be Oregon, could be Utah, could be Pennsylvania, but it surely couldn't tell it was North Carolina. We've got a tough decision on this vote ladies and gentlemen. We can one, vote for the money and for the glamour license plate crowd, or you can vote on behalf of the law enforcement officers who are out there everyday, protecting our families and other people in this state. And this is what it breaks down to. Two choices. The glamour license plate crowd or the officers of this state. And they're counting on you, every one of you, to vote on their behalf. I urge you to support, because I'm supporting them. That's what my vote is going to matter. I hope each of you recognize the importance of this. There are other parts of this Bill I am very pleased with, but this actually destroys what was a good solution to a bad problem that...

It started a number of years back and no one was able to fix except we were able to fix it. Now, because of the house action and because of the Senate going along with that. We are going and voting against law enforcement officers in this state. I hope you recognize that I hope no officer get hurt or killed because of this action. I urge you to vote against it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator ?? ?? please rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What Senator Highfield ?? ?? Senator the compromise end up playing the plate that was developed in consultation in highway patrol and others that has the block with the contrasting letter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ??, as I understand it, that is current law that is outside this compromise that all those plates have moved to the white block now that makes the letters clearly visible. It is consistent as well with the study done in 2012 by the DMV as well as DPS that determined that these plates would meet their regulation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? ?? one more question ?? and just to make it clear this bill does that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's correct. It goes to the plates that are available for individuals now under the current law does at sunset. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. ??. Speak on the bill, you have the floor. Mr. ??, members of the Senate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The problem here I think is the ability to adjust to a better idea. It's not that we're going back to the old idea, it's that we're going to a better idea. I've seen these plates, I didn't know this bill was going to be on here tonight or I would have brought them in here so you can look at them from where you're sitting. With this white block and the contrasting letters you can see them better than the one that's got the bursting flight and the wheat and everything else on it. They're much better contrast. It requires North Carolina to be in a better contrast, possibly even bigger. When I look at it I see North Carolina and I see the number. The vanity of it's part of it's over in about at third of the-it's over in about a third of the side of the license block and there's none of it over there on the white. Now, what everybody wanted to do was to go to the first in flight with the oats and everything all over the license plate. Which, to some degree, clouds a little bit your ability to read the plate or can and a very good solution was found of this. You've got people that, it's not just those people up in the mountains and it's not a bunch of fat cats, it's people that care about the Smoky Mountains National Park, you know they've been short of money. They helped raise money for the park to supplement it. The Blue Ridge Parkway which is one of our gems of an asset up there. They've been underfunded and they need help. These people raise money for those icons, if you will, that we have up there. In the vanity plates, lots of people participate in them in different ways and maybe we can just say, "Well we just won't have any and we'll go back to something." I'll tell you about what they did three or four years ago and I about had a stroke. They put red letters on our plates. You know the letters are blue. All of a sudden I started seeing these red letters. I said, "Where'd those come from?". "Oh well, they decided". "Who decided?". These look very much like North Carolina. Those blue tags look very much like North Carolina. They're safe. They were put together. The law itself, if you'll read your bill, provided that the division shall develop consultation with highway patrol, Division of Adult Corrections, a standardized format for these plates. That's what they did. Law enforcement has signed off on this and said that they're happy with it. There's absolutely no reason in the world to just abuse this group of people and say, "Well, no we're not going to listen to reason down here and not let you do what you want to do in this world when there isn't hurting anybody." And I urge you to vote for this thing to put an end to this [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ?? ?? What purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? ?? to yield for questions. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? ?? do you yield to questions?

Yes sir, I'll yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Since your somewhat of an historian here in the House and the Senate, and I've heard you speak a lot today, would you consider this bill to be a license plate suppression? [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'll let you have that phrase, You need one today. I've been quoted enough. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Anybody else out there? Senator Rucho, what purpose do you arrive? [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator, I would like to speak a second time if I may. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Shorty, shorty Senator, you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Of course, sir. I've got to clarify a point, because when Senator Raven, Senator Harrington and I spoke, Senator Nesbitt said a very important point. This was a compromised plate, and when we discussed this with the highway patrol, Senator Harrington asked, Well we don't want you to have to compromise, what do you think should be the right way to go? And then, we showed them this picture that you talk about, and all of that grey, is all the color, the full color of that. That one little white block where the numbers are, yes that makes it visible. But the North Carolina, isn't and the rest of it is very challenging. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Rucho, we can't hear you, you've got your mike down. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'm sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES]There you go. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'm trying to speak loud, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I know. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]You can't see North Carolina, you can't determine Spencer. When someone is riding down the road at 60 miles an hour, or 65 miles an hour, or 75 miles an hour, Senator Nesbitt. But under these circumstances ladies and gentlemen, this plate, the way it's called a full colored plate with 40 different colors is a safety hazard to law enforcement officers. And bottom line to this, it's either you vote for the glamor license plate crowd, or for you law enforcement officers. That's your choice, and I urge you to vote for the law enforcement officers and against this conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Hearing no further debate, the question before the Senate is the adoption of the conference report to Senate Bill 571. All in favor as recommended will vote aye, and the opposed. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Sir, Mr. President, excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I have to send forth a excused absence. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I mean an excused from voting. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I'll just bring it, it's faster. [SPEAKER CHANGES]That's fine, thank you. You are excused. Okay, all in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. We'll have 5 seconds for the vote. The clerk will tabulate the totals. Mr. Burger Aye, Newton Aye, Brunstetter Aye, Wade Aye, Wade Aye, oh, Wade no, I'm sorry. Sanderson, he's a no also. Wade got to him. Okay, 30 in the affirmative, 11 in the negative. The conference report for Senate Bill 571, does pass and the House will be notified. Senator Rucho, you're mikes off. Sir Brunstetter, are you ready to go? Okay. While Senator Brunstetter telling a clerk, I'll take a moment of personal privilege and let anyone know I look forward to buying Senator Rucho a steak at Ruth's Chris. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I have the floor sir, please sit down. Because he did lose his bet. [SPEAKER CHANGES]I just wanted to remind you that you lost. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Okay, no I won. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Nesbitt and I will go. You don't have to. Okay, Senator Brunstetter are your ready? What? House or Senate? House Bill 652? [SPEAKER CHANGES]House 652. [SPEAKER CHANGES]652. [SPEAKER CHANGES]House Bill 652, modified judicial districts plan. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Goolsby's recognized. Explain. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you Mr. President. This bill places the public reprimand for our judges within the power of the Supreme Court, not the judicial standards committee. The judicial standards cannot recommend a public reprimand under this bill for a judge or justice unless the judge or justice has been afforded a hearing with due process of law. Our records investigations recommendations and hearings by judicial standards in the Supreme Court will have made confidential under this bill, until the Supreme Court issues a public reprimand, censure, suspension, or removal. It also appeals general statute 7A378, regarding censured, suspension and removal of any justice. I'll be happy to answer any questions.

Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose do you ask? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill had a short life last week, because many of us realized that we were keeping information about the judges, who have an effect on anybody who comes through the court system, and keeps from the public any information about reprimands. I will remind us that it had a short life, it had someone who came in and saved it at the last minute, but I want to remind people how we voted last time, that we did not think that this was something that we wanted to change in our judicial system, and I urge you to defeat this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion or debate. Hearing none. Question for the senates passage of House bill 652 on its second reading. All those in favor vote aye, any opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. 27 voting in the Senator Bryant no, Senator Parmon no, Senator Cook yes, Senator Brunstetter aye, everybody got in? Okeydoke. 29 voting in favor, 13 in the negative. House bill 652 passes its second reading and without objection will be voted on a third time. All those in favor of the passage of house bill 652 on its third reading will vote aye, opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will tabulate the vote. Tucker, aye. Cook, aye. Okay, 4 no, Woodard, no, Daniel, aye. Rabin, aye. Okay. Got everybody? Rucho, no? Okay. 27 in affirmative, 14 in the negative. House bill 652 passes its third reading and will be sent to the house for concurrence. Senator Newton, aye. What's that get us? 28 to 14. Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Aye Mr. President, is clerk ready on 112? Not yet, okay. How about we take up the adjournment resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well do we pass it now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I think we can pass it and not, I mean, I think that's fine. What I'm told. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Let's bring it [SPEAKER CHANGES] Want me to hold it? I'll hold it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's just hold it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Stand at ease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let's stand at ease. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Stand at ease, so we can get 112 taken care of. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senates at ease. Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, we submit the committee report on senate bill 112. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You mean on house bill 112? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Placed in forth report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Committee report. Senator Brunstetter, for rules not ?? of the senate committee, supports the passage of house bill 112, committee substitute number one, ?? is to come sub number one, but favorable to senate committee substitute bill as amended, titled an act to make technical clarifies and other modifications to the current operations for capital improvement appropriations act of 2013 to related legislation. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ?? will bring it forth for immediate consideration. Members will begin in just a moment or two to get it on the dashboard, so we'll stand at ease for just another moment. Come back to order please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I request that the rules be suspended to that staff join me at the desk while we go through this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, so ordered.

You let the members know, too, the one twelve will be on the dashboard, and also the amendment, we didn't have time to engross it, so it'll be attached also. Sir Brunstetter is recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister President. And let me see if I can get Ben Stanley up here, is he anywhere? All right, let me get Kristen up here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter, I'm gonna read the bill in while you're getting everybody up there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] All right. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Bill 112. Modification 2013 Appropriations Act. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, mister President. Members, this is the budget technical corrections bill. We have done our best to keep this as technical as possible. Probably the most material policy change is in here will be, is located in section 6.2 of the bill, towards the back. It transfers a number of Department of Justice positions, mainly attorneys and paralegals, into the agencies in which they serve. It's, my recollection about nineteen positions or so, some paralegals, some lawyers. And a number of these positions are currently vacant, but it will allow the attorneys to more closely serve the agencies which they've been operating with. The attorney general has agreed to this arrangement. Also, I believe that Senator Blue had raised some concerns about the low wealth school funding formula. These changes have been made in sections 3.19, 3.20. We have staff here and subcommittee chairs if there are any questions. I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Blue has an excused absence. Further debate. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just have one question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Brunstetter do you yield? He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] If she has just one question. I've heard plenty. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well it depends on the answer, and this may be. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, then I don't yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And it may be for staff, but this is just on page twenty seven, it's something that I'm just not familiar with. It indicates that perhaps because of the tax reform changes or something and telephone, and some kind of tax for telecoms that a low income residential rate will be eliminated by the Utility Commission or something. Is there somebody that could explain what will happen as a result of this change? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant, I'm going to send staff over to explain this one to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other questions while staff's explaining? All right, we'll recess, we'll stand at ease a moment. Senator Bryant, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just wanted, based on the information I received from staff, just to, for the record and to let the members know that because of the change in the tax credit that the telecoms have, which was funding a lifeline, low income, the estate portion, which was three dollars and fifty cents per eligible person, I'm gathering.

Speaker 1: ...funding at a reduced rate for low income customers in a certain category that now will be eliminated by that and they will still receive, I understand, a Federal contribution toward that low income rate but not the state contribution and I just wanted to make that clear. Thank you. Mr. President: Thank you. Any further discussion or debate? [Pause] Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of House Bill 112 on its second reading. All those in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote no, clerk will put on five seconds for voting and the clerk will also record the vote. Speaker 2: Aye. Mr. President: Bryant. Bryant: No. Mr. President: Clark. Clark: Aye. Mr. President: Curtis. Curtis: Aye. Mr. President: Thirty two in the affirm- Speaker 3: Aye. Mr. President: Thirty three in the affirmative six and the negative. Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 112 passes its second reading and without objection Newt and I will be read a third time. Speaker 4: North Carolina general assembly and ??. Mr. President: Any further discussion or debates, Senator Hise for what purpose do you rise? Hise: Just a quick inquiry for maybe to the chair. Mr. President: State you inquiry. Hise: What is showing up on the dashboard as a separate amendment is part of the bill as amended. I just want to make sure that what I'm seeing on the dashboard, that's still accurate. Mr. President: That's correct Senator Hise. You just didn't have time to engross it before we brought it to the floor. Question for the Senate is the passage of Senate Committee substitute for House Bill 112 on its third reading. All those in favor will say aye, opposed say no, House bill 112 Senate Committee substitute passes its third reading and will be sent to the House unengrossed, the proposed Senate Committee substitute. Is that correct madam clerk? [pause] Will be sent to the house. Brown: Mr. President. Mr. President: Senator Brown for what purpose do you rise? Brown: Just a quick moment of personal privilege. Mr. President: Senator has the floor. Brown: Hey Mr. President, I just want to thank the staff again. I know Senator Brunstetter thanked you the other day but I think all of you know what kind of amazing staff we have. I mean, here we are, almost midnight and who knows how late they've worked the last few nights trying to get us to this point, but we are very blessed to have the staff that we've got. I just want to personally thank them one more time and tell them how much we appreciate them. [applause] [pause] Mr. President: Any further business come before the Senate? Senator Nesbitt for what purpose do you rise? Nesbitt: Point of personal privilege. Mr. President: Senator has the floor. Nesbitt: Thank you Mr. President. I just wanted to, on behalf of the folks on the back row, thank the leadership of the majority party for respecting the dignity and the rights of the minority party. You all have, I know we have tried your patience, I more than the rest of them put together and you have done what I think, well what I did when I was in the majority and what I think ought to be done in here and allow full and open debate and we all learned from that and hopefully produced a better product. But I wanted to thank you. Mr. President: Thank you Senator Nesbitt, I believe Senator Stein beat you out. Any further comm- any other business come before the Senate? Senator Berger recognized for motion Berger: Mr. President I've got two things that I need to do. Mr. President: Senator has the floor. Berger: Earlier today when we did the journal motion we had some issues that had not quite been resolved. It is my understanding that someone has talked with Senator Nesbitt about this...

It’s my understanding that we can do the normal journal motion which is what I am planning to do. So, Mr President, the Journal of Wednesday, July 24th 2013 has been examined and is found to be correct. I move it to senate dispense with the reading of the journal and stand approved as written [Speaker Changes]: Without objection. So ordered. [Speaker Changes]: With that Mr President Senate I move it will now adjourn subject to the receipt of committee report, the re-referrals of bills and resolutions , the receipt of messages from house and governor, the ratification of bills, the appointment of [??] and the receipt of conference reports to reconvene on Friday, July 26th 2013 at 12:15 A.M [Speaker Changes]: The motion is the senate do now adjourned subject to the stipulations stated by Senator Berger to reconvene Friday, July 26th at 12:15. Seconded by Senator Brunstetter. All in Favor say Aye. Oppose say No. The Ayes have it. The Senate stands adjourned.