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

searching for

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

House | July 24, 2013 | Chamber | Session Part 2

Full MP3 Audio File

The house will come to order. Representative Murray is recognized to set forth the conference report. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the president of the senate and the speaker of the house of representatives, the conferees appoint to resolve the difference between the senate and house of representatives and senate 127, a bill to entitle an act to permit the department of commerce contract with North Carolina and nonprofit corporations to promote certain economic functions. The conferees recommend the senate and house of representatives adopt this report. Conferees for the senate, senator Brown, chair, senator Apodaca, Merdith, Randleman, Tillman, Mary D. Granville. Conferees for the house of representatives, Representative Murray, chair Representative Martin, Collins, Hager and Moffitt. Calendar [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentlemen of the house, we are back on the conference report for house bill 392. The house will come to order. Representative Arp, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. During the great break we had, I had an opportunity to discuss the concerns with mycolleague, representative Glazier, also check staff and may I defer to representative Glazier?. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. First, I have to say thank you to representative Arp. He spent, and representative Horn I think as well, has spent a lot of time on this break, first talking through the issues and then talking to staff, and I think we've worked out a resolution, an I'll state whatI think it is, and representative Arp, if that's not correct, please correct me. My big concern, as everyone knows before, and I think a lot of ours, and I think representative Arp shaped it is how we balance the criminal justice issue of getting the bad guy here without catching in the net everybody and fingerprinting everybody. And the answer, I think is that representative Arp is going to state what he understands his intent of that provision is as well on the floor and to the commission, that is that the only time that there'll be a recommendation that we go to the fingerprinting which is required for the Federal check is when there really is pretty good suspicion, reasonable suspicion that the state check is insufficient. That is, there something in the Federal check it is not showing up on the state check, and we have some grounds to believe that is the case. And then, it would be reasonable to ask for the fingerprints and go to the Federal check. I agree with that, if that's the intent, and that's was going to be stated to the commission and that's what the commission rules would be, seems to me that that meets every ones criteria and does a really good job. I would consent to that, and I would then vote for the bill because the vast majority of people would not be fingerprinted. That's my understanding of what's going to happen, and I think for my colleagues the other part is the bill provides that the rules the commission comes out with will come out in February of 2014, but the bill doesn't go into effect until months later, so that if there is a problem and for some reason the commission is coming up with a different set of rules than what's intended tonight, that we'll have an opportunity in May to correct that, and I have word of representative Arp and I think representative Horn as well, and I trust it completely, that we will do that. So with that, I return, Mr. Speaker, back to representative Arp. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. That is our intent, is to ensure that again the way the bill is worded, it requires the background check to the extent of state resources. And it does do that. Beyond that standpoint, there would be a reasonable reason to do that, and so if there's a suspicion exists beyond the normal background which does not turn up that, which is the state of an out of state person that has a warrant that does notopener state data bases, then a background check of that nature would be warranted. So, with that, I think we're in agreement, and I would submit, ask for your concurrence. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp, just one other point of information. The chair understands that the senate has agreed to have the implementation date moved back from August 1

2014 to January 1, 2015? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct Mister Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That provision of the bill. So it will be moved back to January 1, 2015. Representative Brandon please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. I wanted to just point out one part of this provision and I know that a lot of people wonder why I always have to get up and talk about this but it's because I have to. The drug testing provision is I do have a little bit of a problem with because I've just come from a place that there is never a reason ever one reason that we take people's food away from them and that's in essence what you're doing and I think that if you look at the way the ?? is set up and the way this current workforce program is currently, the way it currently works is that we won't work with folks who have drug problems and I think that in this general assembly we need to understand that drug addiction is not a normal crime and a lot of times drug addiction is dealt with a lot of mental issues and is an addiction like any type of other addiction and that we need to treat that in a different type of manner. Not in a manner that says okay we're going to take away your benefits and really the only people that get hurt from that is their children who depend on those benefits to eat and so what you absolutely start doing is you perpetuate a problem that you're trying to fix because I promise you that everybody's going to have food on their plate at 5:00 regardless of what you do and they can do that the right way or the way they have to. And so if you take away the right way then what you'll end up having to do is that they'll find another way to do it like might be hopping through you house or selling more drugs or perpetuating the problem instead of fixing the problem. So I really, really have a big problem with any time that we for any reason whatsoever from you to be able to take somebody's benefits away that need them. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if the gentleman will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon, does the gentleman yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Always. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brandon do you understand that in this bill we've excluded the children cases in here where they're were not drug tested in those cases where we have children only cases. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't think the children apply for assistance. It's their parents that do that and so I, I understand what you're saying but if the, I don't know of a case where there are children who are applying for assistance that would be denied. It's the parents that actually have the drug addiction. They're the ones that's actually being denied and unless you're telling me that if you have a child that you're exempt from this then there's no really way to say that the children are not going to be effected. Children get food from their parents. The parents are the ones that are on the assistance. They're the ones that are being scrutinized to decide whether or not we're going to give the assistance or not so it's hard to really get around that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Arp please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the gentleman a question. The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There are two components to this. One is the children's benefit and one is the adult's benefit. Do you understand that the children's benefit regardless of the drug testing in this deal given to the children on that and that do you further understand that the case where we have a guardianship of the child that the guardian is not drug tested? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can I ask him a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield? The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] okay I am a parent, I am on drugs, so tell me how my children are not going to be effected? Cause I'm confused but tell me. I know they're just two different benefits I get it but why am I in the exception if I'm a drug addict I come in you say okay look this guy in might have some drug issues, we're going to drug test him, I fail the drug test but I have children so therefore I'm exempted? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The children's benefit is not effected by this. The children's component still goes to the child and we're talking about the adult here. And really what we're talking about is we're not trying to stigmatize anybody. What we're doing is the hard working people that work and pay taxes and possibly are drug tested in their job are willing to help these people in need and are willing to have their taxes go to that we live in a wonderful state where we have a lot of good people and they're working hard at a job where they need may even be subject to drug testing

Speaker: In order for them to continue their job in what we are saying lemme read it to the tenants benefits for those who are trying to cope with the unexpected works of they can stay on help them get back on the feet time the job and help get back in the society and we are saying that you are reasonable for not an active drug user to see those benefits we protected it from children and we done everything we can done to make this rash-able ?? and reasonable and i for your support on this Speaker Changes:i appreciate your?? statement on that Representative ?? it does still goes to the point that lot of these folks that are in this situation when ever you are i just want us to think about when we feel drug addiction this is the reason why i admit drug ?? bill that's a whole different manner whenever you are talking about addiction and we are trying to move them one place to the next we were able to taken away their benefits taken away their place for they that is really only safe place they have some of these would be probably come in to some of these neighborhoods they are not safe places these are not the places that you left these places were whenever you put on a rapid and whenever you put out on a system either that the fact that you could not work or either the fact that you gotta hospital promo or either the fact that you have a fell end ?? outside the system and you have zero percent to get into a jib and we are just act like the people an walk down the street and go get a job and everything is gonna be fine and is lot of issues that why the poepl have to go and deal with the things which does Speaker Changes: speaker Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose Speaker Changes: with Representative Brandon to yell to a question Speaker Changes: gentlemen you yell Speaker Changes: Absolutely Speaker Changes: gentlemen yell Speaker Changes: Representative ?? were you and i using many side of same issues involving social problems and behavior but i just ask you isn't there a time were every person's life when they get involved in a situation like drugs or whatever it can may be where some busy some one along the way help them by saying no not this time there is new rule i would venture to say that ?? or you were trying to move that one place to the next i mean this whole works for the program and maintain benefits Representative ?? is a space we are actually captured them and actually they went to a place seeking help and this is not simply like general people running around the streets this is people who are actually looking for applications and they may have a drug addiction so what you do if you ask this think about it you case ?? you see this person come in you know this person wont help but you know they might be on drugs you suspend the hell and send them out of the streets Speaker Changes: Mr.Speaker Speaker Changes: Representative ?? please state your purpose Speaker Changes: gentlemen to yell for a question Speaker Changes: the gentlemen yells Speaker Changes: always Speaker Changes: Representative you understand currently one of them were changing the referral we specifically modified the bill to heap the referrals for help that that these people are qualified that ?? qualified drug professionals ?? and none of those mechanisms engaged were help who are people talking about none of those process is gonna be changed by this bill what is simply does is says that you continue as an active drug user and you wont get your benefits Speaker Changes:what i read is that if they fail the drug tested use the ?? for a year i think that's what i red in the bill tel me if I'm wrong ??, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen is supposed to like going to answer in the form of a question this is ?? gentlemen directed question that has the answer in it, Speaker Changes: Absolutely, Speaker Changes: He yells, Speaker Changes: The process is amendment so what we do is denied the one first for thirty days with which they can reapply and the subsequent drug use is paid by them the person is paid by the state and so the way that the wither get into the program assures that the help that they need or no 2 they can reapply in thirty days do you understand Speaker Changes: i did not understand because this is not i red in the bill for what you say I'll take it into word however i still maintain that' snot ?? i still vote for it but I'm trying to say is this body we really need to look at the way,

to kill his of his seven-times that of his building permits of his people attended classes-four of the holiday bowl his mother-in-space weapons-armed themselves so these and other fights time entry of his bills bills that we always worried, the husband is in the office-held island of bills will stay at it with a different way of life in hospital-was-and-benefit of the center at the time of the native eight-year history of the NL's Housing is back up and move forward as the digital age and has been here and ½ ago that the state of the design of its five-day tour of ms the spotlight and-dime of what excited about that the fantasy raises the issue of some point in time person seems with center as a senior to great deal for us always set-up in attendance and Ronald us that his party that will of the people are using 5:00 AM not yet an offense of that was not aware of any effect at all up and down menu of time that partition of India is any questionnaire has created a retarded people have received treatment may contest, I might have long-lead investigators that had a loss as we cannot provide benefits to people were doing, is the business-to clear his office is that the all--year and we have designed a 100 yards of offense, disintegration of the time-zone is as if somehow as one of the question that happens, is that once-four-part question is is the one-time has his basketball since the parallels is not that he will (SPEAKERCHANGES) Martin of getting syntax but the time, said the press that was what we consider to be a wise to department are reasonable suspicion that people are using props, his questionnaire mother can set for the defection of this time entered even far and that current testing is no longer is the person is becoming a classy either unable to respond here we are taking my time for our lives of the current thing using his power to act as a white this will help me get them to function at suspicion and a couple in all weather in the next issues for a spot and child identifier for days and enter this number is one of the city and, some 89 per cent of the stager, small-identified as a designer Mr.-race- estate person as the obvious question, that was when the dow was a cousin of matters not related to motion one and one of the ado the list was now has the president was moving his question alderman of time is a member of the child who was important city, head of a 3700 more have until his assignments and therefore the whole 0.3 minus times the on-white house's back to top the country support the house bill 39 Zeile on the whole President Clinton child who was to dryer 93 at the department has one indicted in the country support for house bill 392 has been adopted several reasons, Mr. China or a center was not his event in the function of the estate of the time this month, U.N. reports that no person Carries all areas of state child redundancy of Sedale Threatt 84 timely ?????....................

House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 354, the bill is entitled An Act to revise the responsibilities of state auditors by removing the state auditor from ex-officio membership on the Committee on Actuarial Evaluation of Retired Employees Health Benefits by solidifying the state auditor's role in auditing Schools in the University of North Carolina system. the General Assembly of North Carolina enacts [speaker changes] Representative Fisher, please state your purpose [speaker changes] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, to speak on the bill [Speaker changes] On the [speaker changes] On the, to actually, yes, to speak on the bill [speaker changes] The lady is recognized to debate the bill [speaker changes] Thank you so much. Ladies and Gentlemen, this bill is an agency bill that came to us from the Auditor's office. It started out with a request that she be removed from a particular ex-officio membership on the Committee on Actuarial Evaluation of Retired employees, just as the clerk read. This bill does that. It also changes the effective date, since we are already beyond July 1st. The original bill had the effective date as July 1st. I know of no opposition to this bill, and I request your support. Thank you very much. [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute of Senate bill 354 on its second reading. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote. 114 having voted affirmative, none in the negative, the House Committee substitute to Senate bill 354 has passed its second reading and without objection, will be read a third time. [Speaker changes] The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts [speaker changes] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the passage of the House Committee substitute of Senate bill 354 on its third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The aye's have it. The House Committee substitute for Senate bill 354 has passed its third reading. The bill will be returned to the Senate. [speaker changes] Representative Moore is recognized to send forth a Committee report. The clerk will read it. [Speaker changes] Representative Moore for the Rules Account Management Branches of the House, House resolution to amend the permanent rules of the House concerning office assignments favorable for introduction. [Speaker changes] Committee substitute number 2 calendar, committee substitute number 1, unfavorable calendar. Strike that. The house resolution will be filed. [speaker changes] House bill 618, Amend Firearm Restoration Law favorably to Committee substitute number 2, unfavorably to committee substitute number 1 [speaker changes] Committee substitute number 2 calendar, committee substitute number 1, unfavorable calendar [speaker changes] House bill 725, Young Offenders Rehabilitation Act favorably to Committee substitute number 2, unfavorably to committee substitute number 1 [speaker changes] Committee substitute number 2, calendar for immediate consideration without objection. Committee substitute number 1, I should say today's calendar, not immediate consideration. Committee substitute number 1, calendar - or unfavorable calendar. [speaker changes] Senate bill 368, County Shared Fee Changes, favorable to House Committee substitute number 3, unfavorable to House committee substitute number 2. [speaker changes] House committee substitute number 3, calendar for today's calendar without objection. House Committee substitute number 2, unfavorable calendar. [Speaker changes] Senate bill 287, the clerk will read it [Speaker changes] House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 287, a bill to be entitled An Act to allow governing boards of Guilford County and all the municipalities located in that country to give public notices electronically. The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [speaker changes]

was please major purpose to explain the bill the gym and has surveyed about. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you all. Mister Speaker, members of the house. this is a simple local bill which will allow municipalities in the County of Guilford municipalities therein on weight to do their official notices by electronic means and not have to go through the newspaper of general circulation, as is the current law is permissible only. it does not require them to do so. it gives flexibility. the bill is designed to help our municipalities save some money there. similar provisions are thanked in effect for some of the municipalities of it, and in wake County on you might consider a pilot to see how it works or not in a larger urban County. there is in Guilford for the commissioners and the city Council a dedicated channel televises all of their functions, and also puts these type notices on the television on their several local papers. some, especially in the district I represent District sixty two we have three small municipalities and that there is probably of superior way of getting actual notice to the to the people of those municipalities through a small paper that's called the Northwest observer. this delivered to every residence of him in the county in those cities on so that this bill come from Senator Wade has the support of the Greensboro city Council unanimous support. it's on their legislative agenda I'm told that five at least five of the county commissioners.five. the nine support the bill. I know this doesn't scale a small municipality supports it. I have talked to some of the at least one of the Council and Oak Ridge, who supports it, and I think it's got support some of the other municipalities. all this has to support of a move of majority of the Guilford delegation. it's a local bill only and I ask for your support [SPEAKER CHANGES] for what purpose does the lady from white represented Apple arrives to send out and then debate the amendment lady is recognized to set forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] the court will read the amendment rights in the battle of moves to amend the bill on page one, line one through page three, line twenty eight by deleting the lines and lightweight as the floor to debate even [SPEAKER CHANGES] thanked the seeker, ladies and gentlemen, we are now entering the edge of era, it's déjà vu all over again. this is an argument in an amendment that I think all of you are very familiar with from a previous mail that was dear oriented. my argument small principles. my beliefs are still the same, and committing a Cardinals fan attacking a local bill and that whereas via half under water. I think it's difficult for a lot of members to hear the lady. the lady from why continues to have the Florida tomato. thank you speaker the thing with local bill is a very, very good if they don't change state policy and this is exactly what this bill does and I'll admit right up front. if you want to check non voting record, you will see were updated on one of these nails because I was told early in my career here that he would you will know you don't argue down when you don't object to him because you'll have the local building evil people to support it. I learned a lot since I cast at night and one of the things is that we establish policy and our statements for the best higher good, and one of the things it's for the best higher good is transparency, which is what a third-party publication of our notices and announcements does the art has been made in committee meetings that I've attended that is the cost issue, and that no avail. they'll continue to do with it. if you read your bill. it tells you that a little of or in addition to the published requirements if if the money is an issue which one of those you think they're going to choose. it is in several municipalities

And we can't do anything about that probably but just because we have made a mistake and which I consider this because of policy of open transparent government doesn't mean we continue to do that. As I told you earlier, we are doing what? I know at least 99 percent of you in here has done and that is complain because Congress passes laws and then exempts itself from those laws. And that's exactly what we are doing with this local bill. It's not a strange bill or an unusual bill. In 2012 Florida passed same sort of transparency requirement for their publications and just as here tenancy did the same thing. You have cast the vote, you have to argue with yourselves about letting a department in government exempt itself. The issue now is much greater. It's our local municipalities, it's our local ?? and I'd ask that you follow the principles that I hope you voted on in the previous bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover, representative David rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentleman of the house, I have great respect for Representative McGrady who is sponsoring this bill and normally I would not stand up and speak on a local bill if I'd not think it might have state wide implications and I am concerned that this bill might just do that. I'd simply like to read from you as I did the last time that this issue was before you, an the article that appeared in Star news in New Hanover and county and I said the first time I'll probably will never read anything from Star news again but I hope you won't hold me to that and allow me do one more time. It represses house bill 723 which is a bill that ?? ?? four coast ?? with representative Avila ?? which is the language we are dealing with right now in this amendment. As house bill 723 were the language in this amendment would expand the reach of public notices by not only requiring publications of notices in newspaper but also requiring that the newspapers publish the same notices on their websites on the same day. As many people as the ?? website my reach, they leave out many others and the purpose of state law requiring public notice in the first place is to ensure that the public has easy, broad access to information pertaining to the conduct of the people's business. Local governments may like to think that notice on their website is the same as notice on a well read newspaper. The result would be less access for the public. The general assembly should leave the public notice requirement in place and consider house bill 723 for the language in this amendment which would expand the reach of public notices encouraging even more people to participate in their democracy. I ask you to vote in the favor of the amendment, Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from New Hanover, representative Catlin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative David said a lot that I was going to say and I urge your support on this amendment. When this issue came up before, I did some research and talked to lot of people in my county and there are a lot of people in my county and there are number of senior citizens that do not have the technology knowledge to do that or people that don't have the money to purchase the technology and there are people that just don't morally feel comfortable with the internet for a variety of reasons. So I don't want to put those people in a situation where we ?? franchise their rights to public notice. So I urge you to support the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Person, representative Wilkins rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I know I am an old newspaper guy and you know where I am gonna come down on this. There have been six ?? bill that have been floating around here this session. I'd say to you exactly what representative Davis and representative Catlin have had to say because it's true. All you gonna do is the deny access to information for certain portion of you people and if you want that the bigger legacy, go on...

vote for this bill, vote down the amendment. But I'm going to tell you, when Representative Avila has the amendment and I'm standing here speaking for it, you're hearing from the odd couple. And I urge you, do not let this type of thing be your legacy. Do not go away from this chamber this week and say, 'You know what I did? I robbed my people of information.' Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ashe, Representative Jordan, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Question for Representative Wilkins. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Does the gentleman from Person yield for the gentleman from Ashe? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Wilkins, do you realize that this is a local bill about Wake County and will not affect my people in Ashe or Watauga? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. May I respond to that, Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman from Person's recognized. I believe it's a local bill affecting Guilford, but the gentleman from Person is recognized to... [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Thank you, sir. And my response would be that I understand its Guilford County and not Wake. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Does the gentleman from Ashe wish to ask a... [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I guess I should restate, we've already had other local bills today about Wake County. Do you understand that this is a local bill about Guilford County and not my District, so none of my people will be affected? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Mr. Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman from Person has the floor to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Very quickly, Representative Jordan, my response will, is that your folks will be next. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam...? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. ?? Speaker of the House. The amendment guts the bill. I was so interested, the first four speakers in favor of it are experts on Guilford County and the needs of the people there. But they forgot one thing, the underlying bill which they are attacking, says that any citizen in Guilford County who wants to get mail directly to his or her house, all he has to do is just sign up and it comes postage prepaid. Now, the courts have considered many times the adequacy of notice for purposes of lawsuits. Personal delivery by the Sheriff is best. Certified mail is second best. First class mail, other mail is third best. And a distant fourth is notice by publication. A distant fourth. Matter of fact, in some cases it violates due process, and yet, you're saying that the worst kind of notice is better than mail notice, which can come directly to the person's mailbox with no cost, no bother? I just, it's incredible to me that you think the people in Guilford County are that gullible. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Henderson, Representative McGrady, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman from Henderson has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Stam made most of my points. I would point out that I'm not running the bill this time, but this is the same provision as Representative Avila's said that was run last time. And what I would tell you about it is, one, it really does gut the bill. If you pass this amendment I would urge you not to pass the bill. And the reason I say that is because what the amendment really does is just as newspapers sort of have the monopoly on printing notices, they then now are given the monopoly in terms of electronic notices with very little price break for what the citizens that ultimately are paying for that. If you'll notice down in the bill it's something like 0.85 on the dollar the second time it's published. What you're creating is a monopoly for the press association. I will speak on the bill if and when we get back there, but my view is, this is, this is an amendment, if passed should not, the bill should not go forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Brandon, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. To see if Mr. McGrady will yield for a quick question. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Does the gentleman from Henderson yield to the gentleman from Guilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. I hear about, we talk about medians and I understand that, because that’s where I have always been on this particular issue, is how the information is number one transferred and how it gets out to most of the people, but does anybody

are you someone else have how many people in the county, especially for those my County actually go on to the county website are many hits do that yet, versus how many hits do other people get. I think that's a very important question. we were talking about how people information and is not yet that is clear the little people that actually go to Guilford County… but [SPEAKER CHANGES] you might have the statistics presented as more people to do that and go to the newspaper on our webpage [SPEAKER CHANGES] to disappoint you but I don't have that information because I am not sharing the bill, and it's a local bill, but let me add one other thing I think it's then having asked that question. it's also fair to ask the women notices themselves are being published at the current time, probably not in the major newspaper and how many people are looking at their what purpose does the gentleman from that converts a fertility drugs to speak on intimate gem has afforded a bank given based on a house out of the state is an amount that it's been stated very accurately represented salmon revs emigrated, is effectively guts the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will because of a ineffective against Bell, perhaps a little better discussion about the bill itself as a town Commissioner and Cornelius in a town about it in my convert County were frustrated because there were so many other ways we can effectively to indicate that may or may not include the Charlotte Observer. it's an option, but are several other options, but here's the problem that I have whether the effect of this amendment would take out the ability for me as a town commissioner and mayors to decide what is the most effective way for us to communicate with our citizens. it could be Charlotte Observer. but guess what. right now I'm mandated to use a Charlotte Observer him elaborate on how to pay topdollar and by doing this bell were not saying that they won't use the media outlet. I trust the local elected officials to do their job, which is to communicate to the local people and the most important why possible and as it is an urban issue. this is an issue where the majority of households have electronic connectivity. this is an area where there are number of vehicles that are arguably in many cases more effective we are talking about a media right now, but by mandate taxpayer dollars have to be spent that make it more effective way to get there. and this is the same industry that has declining and declining and declining readership. I haven't not had print media, but for the last two years delivered to my house and that's a trend that's that's common across all these major urban areas. it's very different than the role areas where I would argue the average town Councilman Eric County Commissioner would say my local media of my local newspaper. it is the most effective way to do it and they will have the flexibility to go to those divide and affect about a builder. those who think it's camel 's nose under the tent. I think it's irrelevant because I think they'll continue to do that for the reasons of and stated around connectivity and other options in the rural areas. this is about Guilford County. if I had any regret about this bill. I regretted my comer counties not in it because I know they thought how we communicate with the folks back in Burke County, there are more effective ways to do it out of the human. what purpose does the gentleman from Gilbert presented parts derives debate in Devon, has afforded a given. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you, Mister Speaker, I want to echo what Speaker Till is just said that it looked. this is a local bill that you don't want in your county, then don't follow build of somebody else doesn't you can oppose it as reservoir, said earlier this is supported by the city agrees Perl am not mistaken is also supported by five. and John Commissioner supported majority of our Muslim delegation Gilbert County supports it and another thing I want to point out is that if you look at the build. this is not automatic. this is an option, it's an option for local governments and would not take place automatically about it. if a local government chooses to go with this option, then for a twelve month period, the governing board has to publish it in the local newspaper where the public can access the information, so it never be a transition. and so again I would ask you to defeat this amendment, and after sporting bill. thank you, Ms. figure what purpose does the gentleman from Henderson represented McGrady ride this figure I can actually give the respond to the questions asked by the number one. the gentleman is recognized to debate

I got a email from the Guilford County Manager. He informs me that the unique visitors per month to the Guilford County website is 60,438. I’m assuming that’s average and the total page views per month is 254,019. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members of the house the chair’s going to direct the Sergeant at Arms to simply lock the side doors, there’s a disturbance down the hall, just the side doors. So members need to use the largent door on the entrance of these two doors behind the dais to get in and out of the chamber for the rest of the evening. For what purpose does the gentleman from Vance, Representative Baskerville, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No purpose, no purpose Mr. speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from Guilford, Representative Adams, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was just trying to figure out what in the world is really going on here. To say that the majority of the people have access and we’re going to forget about the minority of the people, I just don’t think that’s fair. That’s the problem. We always forget about the people who don’t have the access that other people have. This is a good amendment. It levels the playing field. There are lots of people who are not going to go to the internet. They won’t know to go there. Many people don’t have access. It may be 30%, but we shouldn’t forget about that 30%. I’ve had a conversation today with county commissioners, with city managers, county managers as well. Now this bill that we have, maybe I shouldn’t be talking about the bill, but I need to say this. First of all this is a good amendment. I hope you support it. But if the county commissioners have said they support this, this was not the bill they had initially. Now if it’s such a great thing, why are all of the other counties that were in this bill, out? They’re not in it. This is a good amendment. It will make me support the bill if we pass it because it will level the playing field and it will give people an opportunity who don’t have access and we need to be concerned about transparency here. I hope that you will support this amendment so that we can give access to people who won’t have it. The counties will then have to not only put it in the newspaper, but they can have it on the internet. You have somebody said 60,000 people but that’s not even a 1/3 of the people in the county. That’s really not a lot in terms of who’s going to the internet. We should not exclude people. We should not exclude people, we need to vote for this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wonder if Representative Adams would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the lady from Guilford yield to the gentleman from Nash? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] She yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Adams do you know what the circulation of the newspaper in Greensboro is by chance? Is it greater than 60,000 less than 60,000? Do we know? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don’t have that information, but I can tell you that our newspapers, the large ones and the smaller ones, want to have an opportunity to put information in the newspapers because we know that people do read them. I don’t think we need to be talking about, so regardless of what the circulation is you’re still leaving people out and we should not leave people. That’s the point I want to make. We shouldn’t leave people out. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Scotland, Representative Pierce, rise? For what purpose does the lady from Hertford, Representative? For what purpose does the gentleman from Richmond, Representative Goodman? This is gonna go quickly. For what purpose does the gentleman from Person, Representative Wilkins, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time on the amendment, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I guess my one regret tonight is that I don’t get to wear two hats out here. I just get to be a plain old representative, but I’m a representative who knows that if you start this it will never end and you will be known

Representative: ….for the legislature that stopped people from having access to information. I urge you to support the [xx] amendment. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd, rise? Representative: TO see if Representative Allen will yield for a question. Speaker: Which member? Representative: Allen. Speaker: Does the lady from Wake yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? Representative: I do. Representative: Representative, is this your amendment? Representative: I beg your pardon? Representative: Is this your amendment? Representative: Yes. Speaker: Does the gentleman have another question? Representative: Yes, follow up? Speaker: Does the lady yield for an additional question. Representative: I do. Speaker: She yields. Representative: That it may go up? Representative: I am sorry I do not understand the question. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland wish to be recognized? Representative: To ask Representative a follow up question. Speaker: Does the lady yield for an additional question. Representative: I do. Speaker: She yields. Representative: This is the amendment that you brought forward for us to address. This amendment? Representative: Is what? I am sorry I am not hearing. Speaker: Does the lady yield for an additional question from the gentleman from Cumberland? Representative: Mr. Speaker, I will yield until I understand. [laughter] Speaker: Alright, the gentleman is recognized to give one more shot to state his question. [laughter] Representative: I am saying, well, I have been counseled by the speaker before that I can call for a question. So, this is your amendment. [llaughter] Representative: I have finally understood the gentleman’s question. I will be honest with you, I have got the for so I will explain it, I am uncomfortable when that happens because I believe all the arguments should be heard, however, considering the fact that we are in déjà vu again, I think, pretty much, that everybody’s position has been made. Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a motion. Speaker: For what purpose does the lady wish to be recognized? To call the question? Representative: A question. Mr. Speaker, I would like to call the previous question. Speaker: The lady moves to the previous question as to the amendment. Pursuant to our process, we will take a vote. The question before the house is the motion for previous question as sent forth by the lady from Wake. We are going to give members a few minutes to get in. So many is favored. The motion for the previous question will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 81 having voted in the affirmative, 32 in the negative. The motion for previous question is adopted, pursuant to rules, the majority/minority leader are each allowed a three minute rebuttal. Does the minority leader wish to exercise the three minutes? Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker, no thank you. Speaker: Okay. Does the majority leader wish to exercise the three minutes? Representative: I yield my time to Representative Bluss. Speaker: The gentleman from Gilford, Representative Bluss, is recognized to offer a three minute rebuttal on the behalf of the majority caucus. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker, members of the house. I appreciate this since I did not get to address the amendment to the bill, I was running on the floor. I like having the chance. I am glad some of the other members spoke up because I truly did not understand the amendment. I was a little disappointed because this is a Gilford bill, only for Gilford County, and I just supported my Wake delegation on a bill that I had questions on that affected only Wake county. As far as exempting ourselves, I am not sure what that means. I am not sure how we have exempted ourselves from things. As far as Representative Adams comment about remembering the people who do not have the internet, well, remember the people who do not take the paper. It has got a… the news and record has got about a 50,000 circulation. The population of Gilford, I just looked up, has got about a 495,000 population.

I mean, one-- each paper's read by two people that means one in five aren't getting the paper. So how much effective notice is that? I think the bill, sans the amendment, will give more actual notice and transparency than current law. The other counties are out, not because of anything except for the desire by the sponsor to try to run a clean bill for Guilford only; the other counties-- it was a Guildford bill to begin with-- the other counties wanted in, a lot of people liked this. As far as website traffic: You can't go by the current count, because once the word gets out in the community-- "This is where you go for notices"-- the websites will get more traffic because people will go to find out what's going on on the website when they have the option-- that the governments have the option to use the website only and don't use the newspapers. This is true, I think, the speaker's comments were well-taken-- right now, when you give a newspaper in an urban area a monopoly; they can gouge you for prices, knowing you've gotta come to them by law. This bill will also increase competition and lower costs, and that's what so many of us claim we are for, so I-- since I'm told the amendment guts the bill, I hope you'll vote down the amendment and vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the passage of Amendment 1 offered by Representative Avila, to the house committee substitute for tenant-- for [??] 287. So any of us that favor the adoption of the Avila amendment will vote "Aye"; those opposed will vote "No." The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 62, having voted in the affirmative, and 52 in the negative; the amendment is adopted. We are now back on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I move that the bill be displaced. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Without objection, House Senate Bill 287 is displaced. Temporarily displaced. Senate bill 558, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 558, a bill to be titled, "An Act to Amend the Law Governing the State Treasurer's Investment into [?], with regard to special funds held by the treasurer." [General assembly of North Carolina enacts ?] The gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins, is recognized to explain the Bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I felt like it's Groundhog Day almost. Yesterday, I told you what the opponents of the bill would say, and then lo and behold, the next two speakers argued exactly what I told you they would argue; and they are two people who I admire and respect, just voted for one of them's bill. The argument that somehow or other what we're doing is making the portfolio for the state retirement plan more risky-- I wanna remind you-- is based on a fundamental fallacy. This bill does not make the state retirement plan riskier. It actually lowers its risk. A portfolio's risk is not equal to the sum of the individual parts-- I cannot say that often enough, because we're not understanding it! Also: some of the things called alternative investments, in this bill, in and of themselves are less risky than some of the things that are not alternative investments. For instance: Real Estate is not nearly as risky as small-cap stocks. Real Estate is an alternative investment; small-cap stocks is not an alternative investment; but it's something we regularly purchase in the state retirement plan. [?] Inflation-protected bonds are NOT more risky than emerging-market stocks. But emerging-market stocks are not alternatives, [?] ARE alternatives. So you can't make a blanket statement that even the individual pieces of this are more risky than the rest of the portfolio. That argument cannot logically be made. You know, *gavel sound*, one statement was made yesterday that there are lots of types of risk in investing, and we're focusing on one. For instance, with bonds. You have an interest-rate risk: Interest rates go up; bonds go down. That's why our bond portfolio has gone down one and half billion dollars in the last two months. There's also default risk, which Representative Blust brought up yesterday, even if--

?? You don't know once those bonds, but you don't know what rate you're gonna get when you replace them with something else. There's all kinds of risks, folks. If you're investing in overseas stocks, there're currency exchange risks. To focus on one risk is to be myopic. Representative Blust gave a football example the other day, and they are apparently effective, so let me give you a football example. Let's say I own an NFL team-- and that's a real stretch, since I don't have Jerry Richardson's money or any of the rest of those guys' money-- but let's say I did. And I own an NFL team. And I've noticed that last year, my skilled players got hurt a lot: My wide receiver got hurt, my running back got hurt, my quarterback got hurt, and I'm paying all this money for all these superstars that are making millions of dollars and they're sitting on the bench because they're hurt. So I decide, "You know what? I'm gonna take care of that risk. I've noticed those guards and tackles-- those 350-pound guys with no neck-- they never get hurt. So this year, I'm gonna start on my offense and defense, 11 guards and tackles." Now, I will probably have fewer injuries this year, and will accomplish that goal. But you know what? I'm gonna lose every game. Because my 6'4", 350-pound wide receivers can't get open, and my 6'5", 350-pound quarterbacks and safetys can't cover the other team's split end; so they're gonna score a touchdown every time they draw it back and pass. Now, I have made my team less risky. If that's the one thing I wanna focus on. But I'm gonna lose every single game. That's kinda the attitude that we're taking, by looking at it this way. You know, a good point was made by Representative Blust the other day, about risk-- about volatility risk principle going up and down and that is that investors have different tolerances for risk. I agree with that 100%. But anybody who's been in my profession six months, or six weeks or six DAYS, if they've had any good training, knows that there is one overriding factor-- more than anything else-- that determines what your tolerance for risk should be. And that is your investment time horizon: How long are you gonna stay in this investment? If your investment time horizon is very short, you should take almost no volatility risk. If you're gonna need this money six months from now, you shouldn't put it in a stock, a bond, or an alternative; you should put it in an interest-bearing account that you know you can get it back. But the longer your horizon is, the more volatility risk you can take. Let me ask you something: How long do we want the North Carolina Retirement Pension Plan to last? Six months? Five years? Twenty years? I think until whatever the final apocalypse is, we want this retirement plan to last! So a pension plan is an ideal place for long-term investments that may have some volatility over the short run, but, are good over the long run. I also wanted to make a point that investing in other alternatives was compared yesterday, in another football analogy, to throwing long. It's third and twenty and we need to throw long. Well, that's a false analogy. Alternative investments are often designed to mitigate loss more than they are to make spectacular returns. I'll tell you what kind of investment is a "third-and-long" investment is something we've already mentioned today: Emerging market stocks. Small-cap stocks: Those are things that tend to make huge returns some years and then don't make anything for years and years and years. But if you made a 90% return one year, you can coast along for a few years without doing much else. Those are your "third-and-longs." Alternative investments are things like real estate. Real estate is not a "third-and-long" hail Mary, it's a steady [eddy??]-- it tends to out-pace inflation a little bit, each year, on average. That's what it's designed to do. It's not designed to make huge gains. And let me tell you why it's important to mitigate loss. Losses count more than gains in the investment world. And I think I can illustrate this in a way that everybody in here can understand. If you came to me, and you said, "Jeff, you've told me you want me to invest in 'ABC Fund'... What's it been returning?" And I tell you, "Well, in 2011, it made 50%; in 2012, it lost 50%" And you say, "Oh, OK, so your average is 0%, so I'll be back where I started." But no, that's not right. If you think about it, if you gave me $1000, and I lost 50%, what have you got left? 500, right? Now, if I make 50% on money for you next year, how much did I make? Half of five hundred-- two hundred fifty; now you've got $750, you're still down 25%. And you can work it the opposite way: If you make 50% and then lose it, you're still down 25%-- so anything that can mitigate losses is good. And that's what alternatives are designed to do; they're not necessarily designed to skyrocket returns, they're designed to mitigate losses. Now, there's so much false information that's gone on about this stuff, you know-- it's like [if] you throw enough stuff against the wall, something will stick. The Senate passed this bill 48:1, and they passed it in a different form than what you're seeing now. When the Senate passed this bill 48 to 1, the cap on alternatives has gone up to 40%, and the individual sub-caps, were---

15% each every single one of them we are only going up 1% than the overall cap from 34 to 35 and none of the sub caps are going up more than a point and an half or 2 points that was negotiated by senator ?? .He agreed that once it already passed the senate come over to the house he continue to let standard negotiate get it where they want and so forth and apparently that was gone appease them and get there cooperation . I had the same thing happen to me in on state personal act you know how that works, because I go the same thing ?? That you got .somehow the fees are gone go up 42% if we allow treasury to go up 1% ?? that’s mathematically impossible , ?? you know what he said about statistics don’t you . there is lies , there is you know what kind of lies , there is statistics and so that’s the kind of statistics we are getting final thing I want to say is this lot of emails have been sent around one is from ?? , I am all ways one of the highest ranking persons on ?? If you like them if you notice that things is dated in March and it deals with bills in its original form before anything was changed. now if you also read to the end of the article you will see their solution, and I am all about willing to talk about if you want to .but their solution is don’t let the state take any risk let the employee take it all .because it say let’s go to a defined compensation plan, that’s their solution to this bill. So read the whole article before you make your decision based on that email. Last thing I like to say to some of the people on my side .because I think this is a ?? Argument just going to come out and say it because I don’t know any other way to say it but just to brought it out on the table . If you are thinking politically on this thing which I am not I be honest with you I want the state ?? plan to do as well as it can and I think this bill will allow Tricia to do the best job she can do whatever political fall up out or craze or any thing comes in there I am fine weather she get it , we get it I don’t care that means nothing to me . but if you are thinking politically think about this , if we don’t give the Tricia this piece of what she asked for and the portfolio doesn't perform guess who’s she is going to blame it on . and if we give it her and it dose perform then we can share in the credit for that, if we give it to her and it doesn't perform we can blame her for that we give her what she wanted she wasn't able to perform I don’t see how we lose in that deal frankly if we are worried about that so foe all these reasons, I would ask you to please lets vote logically on this lets not take false assumptions or misunderstanding about. I know there is lot of fear in the unknown. And I have enough clients to know not many people understand investments. But will just tell you this in closing if you want to go to attorney don’t hire me hire a representative of ?? , representative of ?? . representative ?? one of these guys but if you want to go to investment advise don’t hire representative of ?? to do that hire representative of ?? and I will certainly ask once again to vote for this bill Speaker changes: what propose does the lady from Randolph representative of Harley race Speaker changes: lady has the floor and debate the bill Speaker changes: thank you , ladies and gentleman I am not going to speak very long but I am going to do want to say 800 thousand members are putting 6% to 7% of their earning every month to out retirement system they do expect us to look after this and we have given the Tricia or the authority to do this I just want to ask you would you invest one third of your own money in alternative investment including trading in wheat in corn features and ferns please vote against this bill thank you Speaker changes: what propose dose the gentlemen from ?? representative of ?? Speaker changes: to debate the bill speaker Speaker changes: the gentlemen have the floor to debate the bill Speaker changes: thank you very much the speaker. I don’t say this words very often but I fully agree with everything representative ?? just said I also in seriousness if you were listening last night . I know it’s been long day for us. What representative Ross said yesterday was an eloquent and extremely articulate explanation of what why we need to vote for this bill the risk , the enormous risk I think is in not voting for this bill the conservative position and I use that small ‘c’ is voting for this bill right now the one thing in the fact that we do know is how heavily invested in the bonds we are and how poor rated return they are and that’s going to be as representative Ross explained last night not going anywhere but down

00:00 in the near future or the foreseeable future there has got to and I just had this exact discussion about my individual portfolio with my financial guide exactly what we're talking about on this floor and although I agree with representative Hurley to the extent that I might not agree with everything the treasurer wants to look at I also know that if I want some return particular as to return given where we are right now it has got to be more diverse than what I have in my portfolio diversity is a really really good thing given the uncertain economics of the world and if we don't give her this option then the likelihood is we will in fact find that she cannot meet the criteria meet the goal and we will have to allocate potentially hundreds of millions of dollars to fill the gap and you know what you'll be hearing if that gap even occurs at all, is there a risk in granting her the flexibility well there is some but there is very little in my opinion for three reasons one the bill contains as representative Collins made clear very strong oversight and limitations on how much she can invest in any particular type of fund without coming to the general assembly second of course in May whether there's anything in the bill or not if we don't like something we can intervene this general assembly knows it has had the authority and has done so to intervene number two there're strong limits even within the bill on any particular fund or type of fund in which she can invest so even if she made a bad choice and let's face it if we look at the choices her investment team has made over the last several years they have been pretty outstanding given the rest of the country we have to have some degree of confidence in her investment team that they'll continue the same trend because she certainly wants for the right reasons and maybe even for political reasons but whatever you want to associate with her she wants to make the right decisions and have the best return secondly in that regard they got a track record and their track record beats almost any other pension fund investors in the country but everyone is reviewing their portfolio now because of the economic conditions to me this is almost not even close if we don't give her the flexibility the risk of what might happen in far outweighs any risk in giving her the flexibility I can't encourage you more highly and I don't think the senate could send a better signal because I think the mixture of personalities and the vision over there is far greater than over here and they passed a bill that didn't have the same protections 48 to 1 I really think that we ought to be giving the treasurer this flexibility and I would encourage us to vote for the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] for what purpose does the gentleman from Katava representative Wills rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] the gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you Mr speaker members I don't give investment advice never have and I don't know all of you real well but I probably bet anybody wants to bet that there's not five members on this floor that have handled solely responsibly an 80 million dollar portfolio of investment for other folks but we're not talking about 80 million dollars we're talking about 80 billion dollars that's one thousand times 80 million this bill has come to us and I've heard a lot of debate and a long debate about what it is and what it isn't this really has nothing to do with the powers of the treasurer whether we like her politics whether Civitas likes how she's operating or what she's doing the speaker's promised us a study on how we're going about this business and that's something we need to do I agree with that but that's not what this bill is about this bill is about a portfolio allocation an investment allocation in a portfolio that I'm guessing is a lot bigger than anything any of us have handled and we're not even talking about an allocation of the entire portfolio we're talking about a sub-allocation of a part of the portfolio now this came to finance I asked the treasurer. 05:00

Speaker: What's happened in the two months this bill has set in the house what happened to that portfolio because you don't have the flexibility you ask for and she told us we have lost a billion and half dollars in that time now the ?? next week and we can get another market shock if, Speaker Changes: Mr.Speaker, Speaker Changes: For what purpose does the gentlemen from ?? Representative from Brolly raise, Speaker Changes: Ask Representative ?? a question, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen does not yell the gentlemen from ?? continues to have the floor to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: There are ongoing market events and one i had like to some of you is you want to act like informal investment committee for the state treasure let's talk about risk there is ?? kind of risk when you force some one stay into the you don't wanna with but Representative Collins mentioned this political risk it will I'm a ?? conservative guy in folks of no men many years all agree with that small C or big c to me is nothing concerning about losing billion and half dollars i also suggests that we all support this bill and minimize our risk, Speaker Changes: For what purpose does the gentlemen from ?? ask Representative ?? raise, Speaker Changes: Thank you Mr.Speaker to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: The gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill, Speaker Changes: Well so same bill we talked about yesterday and one day closure to whats where ultimately happen with in streets and secondly Representative Collin say that bill lot of incorrect figures and factors floating around all over the place and then primarily meant to confuse scare and work on your motions i mentioned yesterday with endowments and endowments plan larges tut ions and universities and so far have been shifting money and to alternatives the past five years there are some endowments large endowments shifted far more 36 or 40 percent into alternatives and they do this not to make extra money on alternatives and they do this to protect because there is negative co relation to what will happen on born prices for and that rights go up there is negative co relation with alternative investments they do this to protect the portfolio the whole premise of putting alternative in the portfolio is not to make risk is not to make money and is to protect the downside now on address two pints have came up yesterday one was that brought up well you have treasure only using 2 percent now why does she using well that argument is exactly why we need to do this the treasure will probably go never i think there is probably good chance we never use 36 percent because the different categories or alternative been capped and i you gone category i think i had to say yesterday as an example inflation protected inflation protected portfolio if that portfolio is not performing at a specific point time or for ever reason they don't thin that's an area they need to place money but they are nor gonna put that particular money in the sub category so there may be 3 to 5 4 of the categories that they don't even have money in yet they capped out in the fifth one so mathematical they could possibly really never get to 36 percent the problem you had when you sties like credit strategies like now performing extremely well this mentioned yesterday that strategy is that one very mathematical you can you can always count right to ?? whats gonna happen in credit strategies or they capped out that's doing well now so there is an area where we could put more money if we ?? so argument about that only using 20 percent out of the 35 now that's the reason now another ?? that came up yesterday or question that came up yesterday was ?? we got bonds and we do have lot of bonds we probably have larger and average supply bonds in this portfolio and you may remember the yesterday,

I mentioned what I gave some figures as to what will happen to these bonds when interest rates go up again. this is a mathematical calculation. this is not something that the just make up our a three percent rise in the thirty year bond is not acquainted about fifty two percent drop in the value that long. that's that's a substantial loss and only number of bonds that are in the portfolio that could be billions of dollars recording screen just in the last two months civilian figures one. two billion that we lost in the last couple months now. the argument yesterday was okay. what bonds are guaranteed. if you hold the until maturity. and that's true. the old thirty-year bond for thirty years. do you get your possible, but in your okay unless you pay a premium for that month, but that's not how pension plans work pension plans are valued once a year for reporting purposes and the actuaries go to work and they come up with a number and they say when you know here's the value of the pension plan at this point in time, I'll weigh right now you're seriously underfunded because we've had a huge market for they don't look at portfolio and say okay we got thirty year bonds, and thirty years, as things will be back. the whole they value that pension plan. I'll bet they and that's the number that used for reporting us. that's the way it works. so let's say we don't have a three percent rise in rates will say we have a two percent rise in rates in the plan only goes down twenty percent twenty four twenty five percent and then you do that valuation at the end of the year. actuaries go to work and come back to us in the essay, you got a serious decline in the value of this plan, you don't make up the difference. so that's an argument you need to look very. core we should e-mail you in just a few minutes ago and eighty billion. the math works the same, whether it's eighty million or eighty billion ninety nine percent of the stuff is mathematical, especially in the alternative scope. so I askyou to support the ticket [SPEAKER CHANGES] members today's Juan Diaz side doors are now unlocked so that members can Internet executives, doors, the sport, and also would ask members without objection known as leaving the house at the house for me to get past nine p.m. is there objection is not the to rule one that leaves granted, will get past nine o'clock. what purpose does the lady from Lake represented Avalon arrives to debate them. the lady has reported [SPEAKER CHANGES] that Bill is a locality name on the tendency to search for information and I honestly had long serious qualms about this bill when it first came out, and so of course I started digging around. since Roth mentioned a little bit earlier about college and university endowments and I believe virginity Blasier mentioned him as well and data, and the think you might find interesting, because I think you know that our universities aren't quite as hamstrung with how they can invest this fall we ask our states treasure to be in the they had enough, and from the national Association of College and University business officers. there was a chart that showed all returns one five ten year returns for our endowment for endowments of over a billion dollars. the ten year total return seven. six percent in a relative indices list. it was the sixty forty S&P Barclays Molina, which is similar to what we are saying controller are rather state treasurer, working under and their return over ten years was five. four percent. that's a difference of two. two percent to the man as repetitive. Ross asked you to do. think you'll understand why we need today for this legislation. thank you without objection rule, twelve H at the request of the gentleman from the far western part of the state is suspended for what purpose does the gentleman from white represented Jackson drives people to do the gentleman has the authority to make a big mistake, or unless gentlemen that you are you noticed it yet public disclaimers on how represented a large percentage of staying only so you probably know what I'm due to the second thing you might not know about me is I am a very conservative person, and it surprises a lot of people my politics, but

and I still has only been out of what was not exactly three without a fight is on using the same mother and will be downplaying the eighties tile ad and a sister on a couple $100 viewpoint in a set monthly and you have problems presence of mind off of it now is only for smaller part of why it might be on the time on some recent investor and a nephew of this all out tiny fingers and cousin of the reviewers and all sit on pages: date from another ?? out from the man is no early July, and we're 241336 at a time all of you out of the year and made a steal and sent the Vietnamese onetime estate loans and I was with all of our dismay something solid as the one team because many cases where no one we have to make an unlisted mail channel is the announcement citizens be on personal reason why isn't 1800 thousand people a ceremony as we speak more than eight erroneous unit that he has a Point I'm more using the none of us and the state was happening and riding all are using these days in the haunted the 1. because people didn't the 16th hole in your case and is on water down and seventies, the happy thing the presence of the point-eight times in the country that doesn't make huge, opinion is that questions and same time as 1990 as it is a floating on the air as the reward was wrong to say you're on incentives and played with performed only Indian thing was raised regular time it's amazing that means the system in this does in the future would wind up at a less money for one thing: 61 to use its time saying some of the erroneous general has made a speech is the time this season has been done, finds a night as the buzzer on Monday it was blasted in eighties listening me slow times the amount the wind west has been visiting for one purpose as time buyer to represent all rights division on the down has reported the age of the status of women with CNN about that even one as the leader with 25 in the polls just wouldn't even steal Tylenol bills was this ability on this treacherous office has been driving under the mall demanded money from wants to cash in and has the time so we lost 1/2 billion dollars that was a conservative investment and style of the new reality we have lost 1., and often sit in the valuations revision in frost's the times into the reason we're not so has the value of the novel or discuss tomato and one in the low walls if it was an actual walls China Town individuals have long been a patient becomes ceo and a single NT all warranties, a former contributions of the defense has time-only the size of the mining and he made his innovations of the hours to defeat this mail one purpose as the county over person plus tracks ?? state of the dumbest floor today to practice maker-house action until recently he was a lot of misstatements of the proponents of this panel what they think there's a bigger picture here first of all I think there's a whole different investment outlook : if you weigh all for the university and now I'm better off for a North Carolina action by for their employees and teachers the endowment's content drive array of this because they don't have as much, why did he was one and Pakistan is something very much to keep in line and the area of customer ?? ??........................

Representative: …handout from the Vanguard reducing bonds, proceed with caution, study that came out in April of 2013. I don’t know if you will take the time to look closely at facts and figures and the argument of the study, but it shows why bonds have been and will always be and important con in minimizing risk. I don’t know about handouts and who have said what – if there is bad information. On either side, it should be bad information: facts are facts. Not failing to concede that there may have been some bad information from one side doesn’t mean that lose the argument, necessarily. There has been bad information from the proponents. There was a handout yesterday that sounded very impressive. It said that the work of the money managers paid back 5 billion in 2012. Now, first thing, I am not an investment expert. I took some courses in college. I have followed the bond market, the stock market, for years, on a daily basis…. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd, rise? Representative: Inquiry of the chair Mr. Speaker. Speaker: The gentleman may state his inquiry. Representative: Mr. Speaker, I believe a few minutes ago, you asked us and there was no objection to us going past 9. Speaker: That is correct. Representative: Follow up Mr. Speaker? Speaker: The gentleman may stat his follow up. Representative: And that was so that we could take care of a lot of additional deals that we have a [xx] decision. Speaker: That is correct. Representative :Mr. Speaker, may I ask Representative Collins a question? Speaker: Representative Collins? Representative Bliss has the floor at this time. If the gentleman wishes to ask another Representative a question, it would have to wait, unless the gentleman has a question for Representative Bluss. Does the gentleman from Gilford yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? [laughter] Representative: I yield. Representative: Representative Bluss…the queue is down to four now so I yield. Representative: Representative, I think you would find things went smoother if there were not a constant interruption from members rising. I did not interrupt from some of the other speakers, and listened intently. This is a hugely multi billion dollar issue we are dealing with, not that some of the other bills we have dealt with were small. This is a local bill, a huge issue and should be approached with great care, and even trepidation. One of the things that worry me is that if you know anything about markets, you approach them with fear and trepidation, and with the knowledge that you don’t really know, no one knows. If the financial crisis taught us anything it is whether we really do have experts, because very few people saw that coming. A lot of people lost a lot of money, and the markets are uncertain, and we do not know what is going to happen. We have got a lot of precious money that our employees and retirees are depending on and that should require sound judgment and analysis, and some back and forth. Speaker: For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins rise? Representative: Wondering if Representative Bluss would yield for a question? Representative: I yield. Speaker: The gentleman yields. Representative: Representative Bluss, I noticed the handout that you gave covers the years 1998-2012. I believe I remember you saying yourself, correct me if I am wrong, in a finance meeting, that we have been on an unnaturally long period of lowering interest rates that began in 1983 and ended two months, is that not correct? Representative: That is right Representative Collins, and I hope that you will give me a chance to get to this other handout. I am on one that was given yesterday. Representative: Follow up? Does the gentleman yield for a follow up? Speaker: He yields. Representative: Is it surprising then that in the longest bull market in U.S. history, which just ended two months ago, that bonds would come out well? I mean, is that not true for anything? If you look at anything at the tail end of the longest bull market in history would it not look good in comparison to other markets? Representative: You are right on that. That is not what this graph is showing, and I will get to that in a moment. The handout yesterday was making

Damon Huard of the money managers take the time 1,000,000,004 300 billion phase of 0:44 ratio no one has a five billion from up above the active traders and have the right to the people of the state of North Carolina you can get you, the numbers as to what the vast majority of the last half of dealing with the overall portfolio and which included on stocks and the alternatives it wasn't just the alternatives to the eighties 0.98 with this on the stand up and yesterday, nothing matters might not be appreciated as calling out the window of the public of his design army of the plight of the please understand the facts the alternative investments as you go up 10% and I'm only when the alternatives and that, in the NT equities and the fixed income-this one is your-per dollar of investments time-buyer comes out to the penny higher fees his money managers charge all of them were not the end of the department of finance's factor driving his factor that is without doubt because of the higher the season of you, times and at 300 billion spot on the pieces are sat in the forefront as of Tuesday declared fact is, out of the ability and desire and-actors single-story of ability and that the captain of life, and ?? is quite a decision this year the next year in the hands of Essex supper held in the next year high as 900,000,000,047 in 10 years and 10 and storage the end of the street, and one in Yucaipa actors now have these investments, which is the time that happened to-wall- because of white knight-hop and equities were phased in, and you come out and does not be significantly ahead because the reason for this in the alternative investment portfolio of in-house for family of this , it is we have it back to the end of this at all times and that the state, one that counts of human endeavor as region, supplied with an International Investments that not here to be paying money managers also not more than they're dedicated on the client, in his hand at a time of life that the NASD and firefly and compare to what the market and the Stanford and 13% last year as CNN, climbed for fighting for Nazis had made when 15 billion $70.00, compared to five billion was made in a very animated at 1988, Saturday were geniuses are you, think about this time the handouts on to which represents Collins was refined assemblies and shelling that historically dry land that would ease the impact of the day, saying about the future, when they do badly in his defense and calm and others and commerce one that has happened, and has been history that's why there said the actor and then, of the folly of tile IRS is the data from Hatcher’s the phenomenal as the over-the-copy of the hands he says all are only on Sundays in its first off and is not the ceasefire last 1988 students will fall within the same on one is: RT, sees the half life and health and that's why the event of a dash in a sentence yesterday were hidden behind, that nobody doubts and scares me that some people or so of certain identification and riley's of the Corel the traditional roles as the default router ??.........

... future because it might not. And that's why we need to be careful now. The final thing and then I'll sit down, is, I've gotten the figures straight from the treasurer's report to the people. I don't know in the credit, what's called the category, the credit strategies, and maybe this is wrong but according to the treasurer's report, we're only in the second year of that. To claim that that's doing so well and we ought to put a whole lot more in, we don't know how that's going to do over time. Maybe it will, but I would be very careful, according to the treasurer's report, the one year return on that was .37. That's straight from the treasurer's report so I don't think it can be positive that those investments have done well. But again, maybe they well. The reason, the sum total of what I wanted to say is simply that we have to proceed with caution. There is a reason we had treasurers like Harlen Boyles who did well year after year. They took a long term cautious approach. And I've just known enough from watching investment shows, reading, that that's what the experts, the true experts. I remember watching Wall Street Weeks or John Templeton on the Friday after the mini crash of 1987 saying, 'don't panic, hold your horses. Stay within reasonable bounds and use common sense and you'll turn out well'. And he was right and I don't want to cast aside those things chasing an artificial figure that we just created out of mid air. We created the 7.25%. Hey, maybe we can legislate that the Panthers win fifteen games this year. You can't legislate that. We can't legislate what the return's going to be. And I think this bill is a good faith attempt by the treasurer to say, 'hey, I'm not going to make that 7.25 unless I go out there on the limb a little bit more.' And as I say, if it works, you guys. My hat's off to ya. But you're making a bet and there's risk that it won't. To make a final point, facetiously we could put 10% in horse racing. Could win and triple your money, but you'd say no we're not going to do that 'cause it's too risky. And I'm just saying at some point there's too much risk and it's not prudent to take and I think we ought to take a breath and look at this thing as Representative Jackson says before we take a further leave. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Stanly, Representative Burr rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman, I think we've had a healthy debate on this. On second reading, and now on third reading, and I would move the previous question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the House is the motion for the previous question made by the gentleman from Stanly. The Chair is going to give members a few more minutes to come in. Or a few seconds rather. Summit ties favor the motion for the previous question will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will. The clerk will let the machine and record the vote. 77 having voted in the affirmative, and 34 in the negative. The motion for previous questions adopted. Do either the minority leader or majority leader wish to exercise the three minutes of time on this manner? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think everything's been said, having been said by everybody and I think that we're ready to vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The question before the house is the passage of the House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 558 on its third reading. Summit ties in favor of the vote will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine and record the vote. 70 having voted in the affirmative and 39 in the negative, the House Committee substitute for Senate Bill 558 passes its third reading. Mr. Speciale the bill will be returned to the Senate. For what purpose does the gent...

Burke represented Alexander Arras. I like to be recorded as voting yes on the last vote and will be recorded as having voted. I own five fifty eight. what purpose of the gentleman from Randolph representative Neil rise. yes, Sarai Adam Ms. moved there, unlike reporters on general be recorded as having voted note represented a hallway. what versus human rights speaker had a sliver the finger of likely records voted no last of the general will be recorded as having voted night. house Bill six seventy five. the clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate committee Centre Browns ville, six seventy five. the building is not an act amending laws pertaining to the regulation of pharmacy technicians pharmacy audits and the prescriptions for schedule to substances Johnson of North Carolina next to what purpose does the gentleman from wake or category riots promotion. the gentleman is recognized that state is most limited of a connection, a move that we concur with the Senate committee substitute for House Bill six seventy six seventy five much debate about Jim is recognized famous figure the Senate made some modest changes to the audit provisions of this bill. the nurse three pieces of this bill. Dylan was the expiration of C2 hard copy written prescriptions doing with pharmacy technicians in the third phase still audits that Edison audit provisions got everybody on board state health plan area. some area Blue Cross Shield for other pharmacy benefit managers is honestly support for the bill be be available to answer [SPEAKER CHANGES] any questions for the discussion further. today, if not the question before the house is the motion to concur with the Senate committee sets paper House Bill six seventy five you are the most leaving her will, but I is opposable but now the corporal abdomen. the court locked machine to record the one hundred and eleven, having voted in the affirmative, and not in the negative, the Senate committee substitute for House Bill six seventy five mostly concurs, adopted will be enrolled and sent to the governor. house Bill four ninety one clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate committee, Centre for health billboard on one of building .net regulates how they shared to provide school resource offices to Lee County school for what purpose does the gentleman from Lee represents own riots still make a motion to debate a motion that was recognized to make a motion in and debate that motion. they disfigure lady gentlemen, this is a build a level. moreover, to sentence him. there was some controversial. the funding mechanism in the Senate wasted that out and come back to the house where she concur for the what purpose does the lady from Chatham represented McManus drives to debate the bill lady is recognized to debate the motion and the school board in Lee County, very much posted that I have had an in-house. there owns the school resource officers for quite a few years. it's worked fairly well for them. they are very happy with that system that would like to keep it that way, it a much oppose this bill, so I would really appreciate you opposing this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you further discussion further debate, if not the question before the house is the motion to concur in the Senate committees the bill for ninety one Samiti 's favourite imaginable, but it are those opposable but not in the Corp. one does the gentleman from Rowand represented by worn with your report omits the court will lock the machine in records about seventy two. having noted in the affirmative and forty in the negative emotion is adopted the bill is ordered enrolled Senate Bill three sixty eight McCorkle Reid, House committee sent you. number three percent Bill three sixty eight a bill entitled an act to provide for ten

The committee's time this message on combined this will permit seem to be announced in Geneva meeting of the media's paper, the salty which are cleaning help for about one whopper but I'm Jennifer Randolph Representative Neal rest today that downtime Martindale-to-three sections to this mail for section eight, the timing is all, and have county's jails and which are prisoners for prescription , China and medicine , and partly on the law was basically have never sent here is the data started on a pro-toppers this time there has been an provision of age or take a day for medicine chat status as a tune up about how this action the section also energy agency sure share permits may like she's not change the mind that the decision that the cost in mime spotlight has never made any year's one of the state and status as a proper suppliers for the patient had made $5.00 BN-one-year-to $5.00 and I'm half hours and status of this embarrassment, the profits and Israel Hospital, there's an animal as revision as a mall is the founding of the Shiite-what all of this is that if you recall ashore in I m and that the first of interstate in which our stuff out of ?? but as long as it is, as a defense that are in jail and charged with developing seven stars of the now and this time they can also reach of the several happened to me that there's any question, but as a ?? for inspection for the date in the question before the house has passed the 70% over a 16 a separate stains they're the best deal, and, for the department of ?? ?? is down right person stands to report its moral of the sheet and recorded at 100 and say that even the time it intimidating house basis 2% of 316 passes a second reading and went without taxing the record, Johnson and owner of the springs-free day is not a question for the house's passage of senate bill 368 was the reason is fighting the passage will stay out of time is saying it has an exemplary 68 passes the reading of the reductions in ?? site when in fact Susanville zoo 87 predecessor for a debate on that mail-in-class that doesn't have as many as two dates built I mistakenly the house wants place to see one of the sponsoring the senate's wheel mouse and satellite systems to 40 minutes a large portion of the greatest action Friday time is not the question before the house is the passage of the house committees of the personnel to 87 a second reading time the second half of the highest-paid and 4.9 ?? is in ?? support and opposition is a statewide one and were in the way the light is not recognizing that question. And that question was put out a dynasty play to the report and that is why he was the report as well as an embedded in our other state in our time represents of 41 EL Nacional De Los Santos and if all the time the report is the question reporters went me ask a question in a place in a second time in-the- ?? ??...........

to record of issued a report that said the end of the time and place in the house be 70% of the 87 passes entering at large is a light nightmares and address with time there are cases in your description of the all-day he was a lot of Cisco Winkler 5/2 minutes to decide that the deal was in fact and seminars on has been the cause of the bill also contains ?? and that of a day of these other hand, China sees as a senior housing was generated by and large the unrest in a good record, the U.S. and Canadian the report is the effort and fall of largest interest time to Dugger war sentiment person at the house to house the report of us downtime or is it that are zero and at the record is 1:00 AM 1316 when we reporters at the time was easier to deal with one person democrats, to the owner has a U.S. Spokesman seven straight down the reporters at a time purchase a dozen designers be reported as for his handling of the report is that person, this was done last two and a caller is only time out the auditor, the report as I know that the eight whoppers as they went down times in after-seeded known 368 points to the report is that another 68 of his lightweight person of interest in the caller one ?? in June in that might be reported as anybody yes 1987, one person is a java Saxon personnel routes Thailand be recorded in Federal -down the records and added no idea it was a tiny white person address the interface and please know is entered one of their nation has already are within a site inspections of cities and counties and the head and I'm the president to 87 with statements about which presided in once the house had enough time was 91 has made it was 9:30 AM Saturday because even also exchanged via it with no carrier to the Morris county jury and speaker of the records that timelines nightmare for his ideas into a set of this is the only person all runs statement I made from trees and down the report added insult to 87 law purposes the body from the numbers and additional routes I think it is the 19.8 in conference and the lightweight report is anybody's guess sometimes at the person of years and saying he is a case of the seven persons and I never use as an investment wage and benefit eight years of a senseless a sign that the 68 0.2 for all his 1987, 368 ?? high speed does their personalities of us known as the 368 down the report is ?? who had been in a preseason it has made ?? is the time is no time has no desire weight is amazing how interest as members are wearing the roles 90 times change the fact be outdone in order to make sure that we know about the role the party race to be analytical as a major events are not as an otherwise known as events that not 1287 days and restore wishing to change their mind when men to as 1287 plays, once the ?? ?? ?? ……………

[Speaker changes.]...other members, please turn your lights off. Okay...the cha...do the following Representatives wish to be recorded as voting aye on 287? If not, please speak up when you're name's called. Representative Queen, Representative McManus, Representative Cunningham, Representative Foushee, Representative Hall of Wake, Representative Holley, Representative Graham of Lenoir, Representative Graham of Robeson, Representative Richardson, Representative Floyd, Representative Insko, Representative Glazier, Representative Mobley, Representative Pierce, Representative Farmer-Butterfield and Representative Brody. [Speaker changes.] Are there any other members...House will come to order, are there any other members who voted no on 287 who would like to be recorded as voting aye? [Speaker changes.] Messages from the Senate, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Committee Substitute Number Two for House Bill 417, a bill to entitle an act to modify the eternal audit statutes applicable to large state departments and university system. [Speaker changes.] Calendar. [Speaker changes.] House Bill 727, a bill to entitle an act to allow the Division of Motor Vehicles to issue a salvage certificate of title to an insurance company or used car dealer in certain situations. [Speaker changes.] Calendar. [Speaker changes.] Senate Committee Substitute Number Two for House Bill 834, a bill to entitle an act enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of state governed by modernizing state system of human resources management and by providing flexibility for executive branch reorganization and restructuring and to improve transparency. [Speaker changes.] Calendar. [Speaker changes.] Senate Committee Substitute for House Bill 669, a bill to entitle an act to appoint persons to various public offices upon the recommendations of the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President Pro-tem of the Senate. [Speaker changes.] Calendar. [Speaker changes.] Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker, I'd like to be recorded as voting no on 368 please. [Speaker changes.] Gentleman will be recorded as voting no. [Speaker changes.] Representative Baskerville, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] I'd like to be recorded as voting no, Mister Speaker, on 523. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman will be recorded as voting no. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moore is recognized to send forth committee report. The Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Representative Moore for Rules and Calendar Operation of the House, Senate Bill 71, amend irrigation contractors' licensing laws. [Speaker changes.] Calendar. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 473, healthcare cost reductions and transparency, favorable as to House Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to the Senate Committee Substitute Number Two. [Speaker changes.] House Committee Substitute, calendar; Senate Committee Substitute Number Two, unfavorable calendar. [Speaker changes.] Senate Bill 483, streamline certain leases for state agencies, favorable as to House Committee Substitute, unfavorable as to the original bill. [Speaker changes.] House Committee Substitute, calendar; original bill, unfavorable calendar. [Speaker changes.] House Bill 522, the Clerk will read. [Speaker changes.] Senate Committee Subsitute for House Bill 522, a bill to entitle an act to protect rights and privileges granted under the United States and North Carolina constitutions in application of foreign law. General Assembly of North Carolina enacts. [Speaker changes.] Representative Whitmire, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] To offer a motion and to speak on the motion. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized for a motion and to debate the motion. [Speaker changes.] I move that the House concur on House Bill 522 and...

Representative: …and as briefly as possible, I will remind everyone that in May we passed what was the original verbatim content of house bill 522 under the house bill 695. it went to the senate and picked up several sections, it was sent back here and got derailed. So, what bill 522 is, is a bill that was totally stripped clean and put the content verbatim of foreign laws protect constitution rights into the item, house bill 522, which we are looking at now. The senate bill Friday passed it with a bipartisan, a strong bipartisan, majority of 31-2, and voted in support of it then and spoken in support of it was Senator Blue, Bryant, Clark, Don Davis, Ford, McLauren and Warren. In a nutshell, it follows legislation, that has been proven in five other states, without challenge to date, it protects fundamental constitutional rights, especially that of women and minorities. If you look at the cases where foreign laws have entered our courts, and this happens often, and in a proper manner, but there are times when the judiciary is forced to legislate from the bench, and act on laws that are not part of our laws 27 times – two case here in NC, one as recently as August – we have had this occur here. Simply put, this honors the order of law, the foundation of our free market economy, it protects women and minorities, it ultimately protects our U.S. and state constitutional rights. I ask you to vote green, please. Speaker: Representative Glacier, please state your purpose. Representative: To briefly debate the bill. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. I will be very brief because we have had this argument before and there really is no reason to extend it except to stay on the record. I opposed the bill the last time it was in the house and Representative Carney and I had a long conversation about this the other day, and I still do for three reasons: 1. I believe that it is the ability of the house or any member of a general assembly to limit the jurisdiction of a court, but it is not in our power to limit what law a court considers. I believe this to be a classic separation of powers problem, that will, if it ever comes up, may, not much, but will raise that issue; 2. I honestly think that it is a ban in search of a problem. It is rarely ever going to occur, if ever, and when it does, if it comes up, because this is not a Sharia ban of law as such, although the intent is what it is supposed to be – the senate sponsor made that clear, but it is not, and to covers all foreign law, then it really does have the potential to create some problems with divorces, marriages, and premarital agreements, and not just as a matter of Sharia law, but as a matter of Judaism, for example, where orthodox Judaism has arbitration panels set up to handle, which would be outlawed under this. It also creates a real problem in those areas where we have very diverse populations from various cultures. So, we have gone over these arguments. I am going to be voting no because I believe the bill to be unconstitutional, because I believe it to be unnecessary and to send the wrong message. Thank you. Speaker: The question before the house is the motion to concur in the senate committee substitute of house bill 522 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, all opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 75 having voted in the affirmative, 37 in the negative. The house has concurred and the senate committee substitute for house bill 522. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor. Ladies and gentleman, without objection, the referral of senate bill 380 to finance is stricken, and, without objection, senate bill 380 will be removed from the committee on environment and re-referred to the committee on rules.

Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I just ask what the short title of that bill is, please? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison, the short title is Adjust Landfill Permit Fee Timing, but the intent here, I think, is for a vehicle for some other purpose, not for the content of the bill. Senate Bill 505, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House committee substitute for Senate Bill 515, the bill to be entitled and acted to delay additional implementation of Jordan Lake Rules and Jordan Lake session laws and provide for alternative implementation of the protection of existing buffer rules. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Faircloth, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members of the House. Every week, when I drive down here to the legislature, I usually switch over off the interstate because I have so often been caught with accidents there, and I drive down Highway 64. If you haven’t been done it, it’s a beautiful drive, and as you come down 64 you cross a beautiful lake, a beautiful body of water. One of the prettiest bodies of water in our state. And every time I cross those two bridges on 64, coming across that lake, I have memories of that old song, “A Bridge Over Troubled Waters.” This lake certainly has been troubled for a good while now, and it is time for us to face up to the problems and try to make this thing work so that that lake is as pretty under the water as it is to the view from the highway. There are some policy changes necessary, and I want to talk about that a little bit. The federal government built an impaired lake and now the state is left to fix a federal problem. Too often we have heard that happen in other things, but I think if you look back at the history of this lake and Representative Ross in a few moments will tell you quite a bit about the history of it, we do have a problem there. Eight years of DNR data, that is from 2008 to 2012, show that the nutrient and resultant algeal issues in the lake have not gotten better and in some cases have gotten worse. Now this is despite a lot of hard work trying to make them better. Hundreds of millions of dollars later, we have no improvement in lake quality in DNR’s opinion. The evidence suggests that deployment of unlimited resources and technology upstream will never improve the water quality at the lake itself. Hundreds of thousands of people depend on this lake for drinking water and recreation, and we owe them clean, safe drinking water. Nobody, nobody that I know of, wishes ill on that lake. Everybody wants it made better. Cary is currently pursuing a 2 million dollar investment in aeration mitigation technology for water treatment because of poor water quality in what is one of the least impaired locations for the lake. The Jordan Lake Rules continue to put a tremendous burden on municipal and county governments as well as the private sector, and will continue to do so with no improvement in the lake quality. Development is being stopped and municipalities are diverting money for ineffective water treatment solutions. The net effect of that is that jobs are being lost. Technology exists today that did not exist when these rules were first being developed. New technologies require a new regulatory approach that actually works. There is no sense in throwing good money after bad. This bill differs from the senate version. The senate version repealed all the rules, in effect, and …

to start over. This House PCS simply delays by three years, only the rules not currently enforced. The House PCS also leaves in the buffer rule changes in the original version of S515 and adds language to address the unique buffer situations regarding airports, and you'll hear more about that. The bigger picture, S515 is part of a 3-pronged approach to improve water quality at Jordan Lake. The bill itself only delays rules, by three years, not currently enforced. The rules that are not currently enforced. During this three year window, the state will fund an in lake water quality demonstration project with 1.7 million dollars from the Clean Water Fund, and 300,000 from DENR's operating budget. Both of these are supported by DENR. DENR is fully on board with this project. The President Pro Tem and The Speaker can appoint an LRC Study Committee to specifically study the Jordan Lake policies during the interim. That’s the general approach that this bill takes. And Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to recognize Representative Ross to go into a little more detail. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Representative Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. Debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. The gentleman's recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]. It's getting late, so my vision is getting a little off. I hope I can see. As Representative Faircloth said, the purpose of this bill is to, this is a substitute for what the Senate had originally proposed, and that was a total repeal of the regulations. There were some stakeholders involved back upstream that said no, wait a minute, let's don't do that because we've already invested some money into this process. So that's how we were able to work out this solution. I've been involved in the Jordan Lake regulations since back in the beginning, as a councilman and as the Mayor in Burlington. I remember very well negotiating, or trying to negotiate with DENR back when the regulations were being formed. Now, there's several parts to the process, we call them phases. The first phase really dealt with point source nutrient management. Which, for those back upstream, which would be like Burlington for example, Greensboro, and Reidsville, some of the cities back up in the Haw River arm, this meant our waste water treatment plants. It was at that point in time that I learned more about waste water treatment plants than I ever really wanted to know. In particular, as to what goes out the other side. Burlington took the approach that we, as many of the stakeholders in the Haw River arm, and I'm speaking here really specifically the Haw River arm, because that’s the one I know most. As the other stakeholders, we wanted clean water just as bad as anyone else did, but we had done a great deal of research that showed that a lot of the overbearing regulations really would have little to no impact on the lake. But we made the decision in Burlington to go ahead and spend the money for the upgrades, and started calculating what the other parts, or the other phases of the regulations would do. At this point, I just conferred with the City Manager in Burlington, the city there has spent 25 million dollars as a result of the first phase of these rules to upgrade their waste water treatment plant. Now, that’s one city. As I mentioned, Greensboro, Reidsville, there are a number of cities involved in this. It's hundreds of millions of dollars that has been placed on our municipalities and our counties as a result of these regulations. Now, as was stated earlier, this portion of the regulations is moving forward. Those have already been approved. We accept that and we move forward, as I said, we've already spent the money. It's the other phases that come about, and I'm going to give you a couple of examples, as was mentioned just a moment ago. There

Citing air force the life and someone has an Airport happen with your name on a warm place for treatment of a housewife, the process can sometimes , they were simple melody parts of routed sure your opponent Tylenol in part-we had a history that as more Airport and so our communities and the doorway area Pearsall of economic activity more of an armored force time for second place for a smaller and more-we have on the bill is sometimes a lot of your engine for the options to go to race for now the annexation run-in or to accommodate the state, and has some data, and other industries and walk around here for some fantastic time access and the workforce-dozen of this session we have a major story in the realm of raw steel online and with the force of the time already have made process, already were able to get them all the permits in the head of the ultra Muhammad Ali and so hilarious and reach an anonymous call 1 to 1 (SPEAKER CHANGES)responder war one and manufacturing facilities in rates for a celebrity process I'm not a partisan battle developments lost in Camarillo party is for instrument to pass the only places for communities time, starts service-provision of the listings change them all out Airport, and then to the report ready connection to the report when one of the processor permitting process here and not a liar faces a time of the regulations the Federal government has proposed formation of a Hawthorne and require time radio off of the nation's highest rate onto a mistrial the story on to some degree star for that in some cases we go back into the system time of his pride in our exact your DNA-all the time they are good that the historical site of the hostages helped orchestrate it wants to run another regulations Mr. Right now we wouldn't have time they run the success of 450 years in condemned the Rangers $2.00 reduction on the wall of 1100 areas would rise city and all I hear is formally unveiled a plaque even after the fact to dry leases and they ran into property just go on vacation, as it is a longtime bear and now are some Somalis regulations and pain and there is no uninstall streaming back, Monday is, in one house clean up and wait for child-city manager this morning and what he felt lighter and 1/2-years as the one that phase of the regulations were the cost the city and he said the best I'm right in thinking my door is mentally five million dollars assessed against the 75 and $8.00 just to let me just areas, and the regulations, the big problem that we had arisen as nothing to suggest that even the arteries that Thailand Swiss, was one is that the only for the one to be the year of the market is this man…, In one passage change: when selecting his work were asking for his status for his rather than comments to the tune of one child null and the antiwar all westward head with the with the regulations of Oregon put in place when a storm 2010 and was selected as they all fire this is also enforce what several active than three years and 5 minutes for a profit motive technology to see if we can somehow tile ???......

...have some inmpact on cleaning up the lake because the bottom line is everybody wants clean water from the lake. But let's do it the right way with the right science. The other factor would be to study some of the latter phases, some of the other regulations to determine if they in fact are gonna work? Or are there alternatives to going into old neighborhoods and putting in retention ponds. Things like this. It's just going to give us a little bit of a breather rather than spending hundreds of millions of dollars and give us an opportunity to really get serious about testing some new technology and at the same time trying to find some way to craft regulations that are feasible and won't bankrupt our municipalities and our counties. I'll try to answer any questions I can. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I feel like my constant refrain this session has been to thank the House for making a really bad Senate bill a lot less bad. And that's certainly the case with the Jordan Lake rules. Proposal to repeal it in the Senate was unacceptable. I appreciate representative Faircloth and representative Ross' leadership and trying to tone down the impact of the bill by turning it into a 3 year delay. But the practical impact is we have an impaired drinking water source that's very import for 300,000 North Carolinians that will continue to be impaired if we delay the implementation of the Jordan Lake rules. We've been working on these since 1997; they've been through multiple stakeholder processes. I've been involved with Representative Allen and prior Gibson back in 2007 through 2009 with a stakeholder process that signed off on the Jordan Lake rules bill and legislation that was enacted in 2009. That has been delayed twice. That's in part why we aren't seeing visible imporvement in the lake right now because we continue to delay the rules. These aren't requirements that we can avoid because they're federal requirements of the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act anticipates upstream participation and not just at the lake. There's been mention of the technology that was tucked into the budget bill we voted on this afternoon for the Solar V technology which is on site at the lake. I've done a little research on that and I distributed Monday a flier on this technology. It's designed to aerate the water. It doesn't really clean out the nitrogen and the phosphorus which is the source of the pollution in the lake. It's not really proven technology. It's been tried in Lake Houston and it isn't really working there and they've got the sixth worst drinking water in the nation - not something I'd like to emulate. We know from other experiences with other watersheds that storm water management works. It's an important component of the water quality protection of the state which we did sort of decimate with the budget cuts. We spent so much time and effort on these Jordan Lake and I think we ought to give them the chance to be implemented. The continued delay is not going to serve the public well and certainly not Jordan Lake well and the importance of the drinking water source. I think what this bill does is continue to shift the burden of the cleaning up of the lake from the developers who would develop in a way that would prevent the pollution in the first place to taxpayers who are going to have to pay to clean it up. I think that's unfair and unfortunate. I think this is a terrible bill. I'm glad it's not a complete recall, but we are not doing well by the folks who drink water from Lake Jordan. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I drink the water from Lake Jordan down in Wilmington so this is important to me. I just want to say that because of what I do for a living, very very little impact on improving Lake Jordan would be accomplished by implementing tougher rules. The majority of nutrients come from non source-point pollution that would not be regulated. You put a very unfair and unnnecesary burden on citizens on the growth and economic development and housing and everything else that really has a very, very minor impact. I think this is a very thoughtful approach to this and we did in our budget go ahead and approve...

The pilot program to experiment to see if we can do some, some form of mitigation. So all we're really doing here is, is giving us a 3 year breathing space to take a close look at it. I could tell you that you go back just a few decades and the, and the focus of storm water rules were flooding protection. And now it’s kinda become a religious politically correct battle to, to treat storm water as a, as the most serious polluting activity, when it's not. It starts as clean rainfall and most of the nutrients and most of the things that get into our water supplies are naturally occurring. So I, I urge you support of this, I think it's a very thoughtful approach, thank you. [Speaker Change] Representative Grier Martin please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker, thank you members. Let me ?? the lady from Guilford's genuine appreciation of the gentle ?? and the gentleman from Guilford's working hard to mitigate what the Senate was trying to do. As someone who's in the line of fire on this I'm deeply grateful for your work on this. I do want to make it clear though to the members that this has been a long, long process. I got here in 2005, and this process was already in the works. I've been deeply involved in it throughout that time. There’ve been numerous stakeholder meetings, consultations with all folks involved in it geographically, economically, and so forth. What they came up with wasn't pretty, didn't satisfy completely anyone, including me. But it was a compromise. Since that was reached its been delayed by this body several times. We've delayed it frequently over and over again. And so yeah of course we have not seen the kind of changes we'd like to see in Jordan Lake. But I just don't think it makes sense to say, well we came up with a plan to fix it that we haven't fully implemented, it hadn't gotten fixed so let's delay the plan further. That, that's not the right approach to take. I, I do appreciate the gentleman from Guilford's depiction of his drives by Lake Jordan. I don't drive by it much, I'm sure it's a pretty lake, but in the end I, I don't really don't care how the lake looks, for me it's about economic development, it's about the growth in my area, it's about jobs in the district I represent. And what we're looking at is a limited resources, it is something that we've got to share. You pull on one end it does have an effect on the other end. What you do up in Burlington does affect Raleigh, and what we do in Raleigh will affect y'all upstream. And so a compromise is necessary, and a compromise was reached. A compromise that didn’t allow unfettered growth in ??, but it did not give the folks downstream everything, by any means that we would want. And I just think it's irresponsible for this body to abandon methods that over time have been proven to make significant progress towards the cleanup, to delay that further. Because folks this problem took decades to create, and we can blame the federal government, we can blame the state government, it's a state government problem, federal government problem, whoever. In the end it's a problem for my constituents, it's a problem for Representative Ross's constituents also. We had a way that made everybody kind of unhappy but in the end everybody more or less was on board with. We don't need to delay that further. Let's get started in cleaning this up before someone makes us apply a fix that's gonna be more in the end even more expensive to your constituents and mine. [Speaker Change] Representative Luebka please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] Speaking on the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Members of the house while this is better than eliminating the rules, to delay the rules is merely to let things get worse for 3 years. The fact the matter is the referenced experimental program only deal very with a tiny part of the lake and that cannot possibly clean up the lake to the level that we need. What was negotiated for a long time did not make all the stakeholders happy. We in Durham committed to do our part even though it is expensive to Durham. We don’t like doing it particularly any more then Burlington, or Greensboro High Point. But the fact the matter is it's a technology that was agreed too, it's a technology that has been working.

And has only not worked as much as we would like to because of delays. And so to delay for three more years is simply to ensure that there will be more pollution because there will be more unprotected development upstream, in thee upstream places and to do so is to make things worse for Jordan Lake and the 300,000 people who live who live primarily in Western Wake County who will have to deal with this issue of untreated or unprotected waters to the degree that we wanted to protect them. So, members for those reasons, I would urge you to reject this compromise, this delay, because the delay is only happening because there are the votes to make it happen. And that's not a good reason to get rid of a plan that was working, so give it a chance to work. Please vote no on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Jordan Lake is in my district. It's in Chatham County. I cross Jordan Lake most days twice a day. I love the lake. It's a beautiful place. My children tease me because of the unexplainable joy I feel when the lake is full and the sadness I feel when it's low. Right now it's full, we've been lucky. But I still feel sadness when I think about how that water is not as clean as it's supposed to be and how many people are depending on that lake for their drinking water. Siler City does not depend on that lake for their drinking water. I honestly think Chatham County should have gotten a little more use of that water when they negotiated the deal but they didn't. But it's still very important to very many people. I hope we will continue to take care of that water and not put off these regulations and delay keeping it clean. I think it's just as important to continue, and this is going to sound a trivial comparison, but if I'm away all week and I don't clean my house, when I go back it's much worse than if I'm there and I'm working a little bit each day. If we put off for three years taking care of that lake, it's only going to get worse and it's only going to be more expensive when we come back to it. Then there is still a chance that the federal government is going to come down and say "You don't have that option of putting it off. You have to do this. You have to take care of this lake and keep that water clean." Please don't put this off. It's very important that we keep our drinking water safe. I think our drinking water is going to become one of our most valuable resources in the next 50 years and North Carolina really doesn't have very good plans for our water usage for the future. We've been lucky enough to have plenty of it. We need to have a plan and we need to be taking care of the water that we have. Please vote against this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Glazier, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill, Mr Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr Speaker. I would have thought actually that since the Jordan Lake rules survive negotiation with Representative Gibson all these years, they could survive about anything. But apparently not. And there was a day and time when negotiated settlement that resulted in legislation was honored, but we, I guess, are past that time. I claim not to know very much about environmental issues but I can read a letter from the EPA issued a week ago. And so my three reasons for voting against this bill are this letter and then the other two which I'll give you very briefly. This letter is issue July 10th, or received July 10th, so it was issued several days before of this year by the EPA with regard to this bill. And some of you have seen it and some of you haven't, but I'm not going to read the whole letter but I am going to read a couple of pertinent parts. And this says "The Jordan Lake TMDL has been approved by USCPA and it establishes reduction targets of total nitrogen and total and phosphorous from both non-point sources and point sources permitted discharges. Implementation of the nutrient reductions contemplated by the total maximum daily load will address..."

?? Impairment, in Jordan Lake. And as with most TMDLs, the Jordan Lake TMDL involves an allocation of necessary reductions. Necessary reductions between non-point source and point source dischargers. And then it goes on to the key paragraph. We understand the proposed bill would establish a study committee which among other tasks would be charged with developing a technological solution based on mitigation of pollution at the lake without the need for pollution reduction upstream. And obviously under this bill with a three-year delay. Here is the language. This approach is generally inconsistent with the Clean Water Act which contemplates the implementation of pollution source reductions to address water quality impairments. And it goes on and says, "any abandonment of efforts to achieve reductions from nonpoint source dischargers could make it necessary to revisit the approved TMDL and assign greater reductions to permit a point source dischargers. From our perspective the TMDL will remain in place. The nonpoint source pollution reductions would still have to be addressed. And the pollution reductions assigned to point source dischargers will still have to be reflected in permits. We will closely monitor the progress of this proposed legislation. Now I don't again know the science that well, but I can read that letter. And I'm very clear about what it's saying. And we ought to be too. And so we either to continue to do what we're supposed to do and control that process or we will very soon have abandoned our commitment to a point that we will not be controlling that process. The second thing, I understand the limited technology of the solar mixer, and I agree with the idea generally of pilots. Particularly on new technology. Except that we've already had several pilots with this technology and they haven't worked. The first pilot in a large lake, was Lake Houston in Texas, and that didn't work at all. That was referred to earlier. But there's even been an earlier pilot with a slightly older version of this which was at greenfield lake in Wilmington in 2005, and that didn't work. And I know that didn't work because I read the article about it a few months ago by Dr. Mailin from UNCW and Dr. Rick Owl from Duke, who said it didn't work. And so the third thing I thought, "well, if this is still going to be a possibility, I ought to at least ask some people I know." And aside from asking Rep. McGrady, I went to a different source. And I went to the former president of the national Sierra Club who helped write the environmental protection laws of the country with the Nixon administration in his role. And spoke to him and had dinner with him the other night, and I showed him this picture and the pamphlet and technology, and I asked him what he thought. And when he stopped laughing, is when I kind of figured out what he thought. And he said very clearly, "this isn't going to work, it never has worked, it's not going to work. And even if it does to some degree, it doesn't remove the pollution from the lake." Well I don't know as I said a lot, but I know that I'm going to rely on the former president of the Sierra Club who helped write the PA Regs. I'm going to rely on the professor from Duke and the professor from UNCW who said the pilots haven't worked. And I'm going to rely on the letter from a week and a half ago from EPA that said we better not do this because if we do there is at least some likelihood that the EPA would get far more involved in our business. And for all those reasons, and many more I suspect for others, I'm not going to vote for this delay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask the bill sponsor a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Rep. Fairclaw, do you yield to your seatmate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will, he's bigger than I am. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We generally don't talk like this Mr. Speaker. Rep. Fairclaw, in the Bill on page 2, it references the intent of the Gen. assembly to temporarily delay the implementation measures to address water quality issues in the lake in order to further evaluate current measures and further exploration of other measures and technologies. You heard my questions this morning on the budget. My question is...

Whether the other measures in technologies are the technologies that are set forth in the budget bill. [Speaker Change] My understanding Representative McGrady is that the probably the LRC will help take part in a study of this issue and that, and I've talked with ?? officials and there intention is to look at the technology that is being mentioned here, that you and I have talked about before, as well as whatever is available. And basically we've asked them does that mean that you look at the best practices even worldwide if you have to. And they've guaranteed us that they would. [Speaker Change] One further question Mr. Speaker. [Speaker Change] Representative ?? do you yield to your seatmate? [Speaker Change] I do. [Speaker Change] He yields. [Speaker Change] The bill in this, in this case the budget bill. But it apparently refers to these technologies. I was wondering if, if you know where all these specifications that are so clear and so apparently referring to one technology came from. [Speaker Change] I'm sorry I don't know that. [Speaker Change] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Change] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Mr. Speaker, colleagues I didn't actually come fully prepared to respond to this because both leadership and my seat mate understood that this was not gonna come up 'til tomorrow. So I took all my materials back and I'm having to wing it a little bit, which is probably good. We've heard from one of our colleagues an engineer who opines that the technologies that may be used here, I don't wanna put words in his mouth but are, are workable. And I, I find it always curious a little bit in the, the chamber that we're, we're relatively quickly to, to accept the opinions of engineers, and real estate people, and a range of other things. But we don't very much care for the opinion of lawyers, and we certainly don't care for the opinions of scientists. And the science here even though we never like to listen to that doesn't appear to be real positive. And I don't even have to go check with a former CR President to find this out. A Duke professor and a UNCW professor both written at some length on this, and the Duke professor has said that there is no chance the device or other techniques would effectively replace the storm water controls of the current approach. He also said that the situation could grow worse as more land is paved, and more water flows into the lake. His concern as a scientist is that Jordan Lake, if the Jordan Lake rules are deferred for 3 years, there are 3 lost years of opportunity to get the phosphorous and nitrogen sources in the waste water shed reduced. And that's, that's really the issue. And what I'm gonna enjoy and, and actually Representative Hastings brought, made me realize this. Is when the vote occurs here I have a suspicion that all of the legislatures who drink water from this lake, and on a regular basis with the potential exception of the speaker protem. Are gonna be on the other side of this bill. And I'm gonna be looking forward to seeing how those that drink the water are voting on the bill that effects them and their constituents. [Speaker Change] Representative Vensco please state your purpose. [Speaker Change] To debate the motion. [Speaker Change] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Change] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members I'm stunned that we're still talking about Jordan Lake. I first got involved in the Jordan Lake pollution issues in the late 70's before impoundment actually took place. And we've been talking about it ever since. And still nothing has, much has been done. Someone said that these rules wouldn't have any effect on cleaning up the pollution. I'm sure that's a misunderstanding, it's a serious misunderstanding because the rules actually do address a non-point source. They address the development run off, the storm water runoff, and the agriculture community is participating. I have received emails from the agricultural community asking us to

…this bill because they want the rules to go into effect. And we all should want the rules to go into effect, because if they don’t the waste water treatment permits are going to have to be improved, and that means money for all of us who have waste water going into Jordan Lake, who haven’t cleaned up our waste water. And that may be many of the upstream communities. So here’s just a sentence form a letter to the governor: The Jordan Lake rules are the means by which North Carolina, under the Clean Water Act, will achieve the federally mandated target reductions. So we need to vote no on this bill and let these rules go into place. This won’t be the last… Let’s assume this bill passes and the Jordan Lake rules are postponed three years. In three years, there’ll be another bill to postpone them some more because this is the way it always happens. We have the stakeholders get together, all the parties are there, they work through the rules, they get peeled back gradually so that they’re not as good as they need to be, but they’re better than nothing. And then there’s a consensus reached, and then the bill is presented. And then the people who stand, who don’t want the rules at all, start to undermine the process. They don’t stick to the consensus game. So when these three years expire, we’ll have another bill. This can’t go on. This water is getting worse every year. More and more people are drinking out of it. This bill doesn’t require the delay of any development. So development in the watershed’s going to continue to go on, and there’s going to be more and more runoff, and more and more pollution. I guess the fights about water must be as old as communities. They go on and on. But you don’t pollute the downstream drinking water. You don’t pollute from the upstream. Water is our most important natural resource. It’s our most important resource. We have to have clean… The water belongs to everybody. We don’t have the right to pollute somebody else’s drinking water. We’re going to have to clean the lake up, and this is the time to start doing it. We need to vote no on this bill and let the rules go into effect. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Holley, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I know you’ve heard the story that I’ve worked in purchasing contract for 25 years. And one of the contracts I did on a regular basis was cleaning up our rivers and streams. Not just one, but numerous ones. They started out as a few and they became numerous. And they became numerous because we were cleaning up the rivers and streams and not solving some of the problems. Now I have seen some that have been cleaned up. And those that were cleaned up were cleaned because along with cleaning up the river and the stream, they also cleaned up the problem that was causing the river and the stream to be pollutes in the first place. And we can sit here all day and talk about Jordan Lake and it’s not going to get any better until we do a duel thing. And that’s clean the lake up at the same time we’re cleaning up the problems that add to the problems of the lake. You know, it’s only going to get more and more expensive. Another thing is, this does not get better with inactivity. So not working on it and looking at theories, we need to continue with the programs that we have, that we are trying to implement now. You can add some new industrial things along the way, and try some new technology. But let’s deal with what we know works. And that’s cleaning up the lake, as well as cutting back and cutting out the problems that pollute it. I say let’s not support this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McElraft, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, member of the House. I wasn’t going to speak, but you know, we need to look at these issues. And it’s not just this technology. But when I talked to Tom Reeder about this, I don’t know if you all know Tom Reeder, but he’s our Director of Water Resources. He is touted by environmentalists, and also others, that he knows more about water quality than anyone probably in this state. Tom Reeder met on our office during the…

Negotiations, and he said, "What's happening is not cleaning up Jordan Lake." And let me tell you another thing that's happening with some of these buffer rules. They're enticing animals, critters, birds, to them. Some of the pollution's caused because of these critters and because you're enticing them because of some of the buffer rules. It's happening on the coast.They increase the buffer, and the birds, the raccoons, the opossums all come, and that's where your pollution is. In fact, North Carolina State did PCR testing to find out if it's-- what breed of animal is it, and it's almost all avian, it's almost all birds. The buffers are enticing the birds. Retention ponds that were touted in these Jordan Lake rules to solve the problem, even by the Coastal Federation and the most dedicated, I would say, environmentalists (I won't say the word I'd like to use, extreme, but anyway... I guess I just said it), those folks are saying that these retention ponds are not working. Why don't we give that chance to study what is going to work? What's happening now is not cleaning up Jordan Lake. We need to look at other resources, other studies, other technology, before any more county money, taxpayer money, is thrown into the river, into the lake, with no good. Please give this a chance. It's just a pause. It's not a total restriction of the rules. Give this a chance. Please vote yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Ross, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to point out that the Phase 2 regulations that went into effect back in 2007 that affect development and sewer plants are staying in effect. There's nothing changing there. Those regulations that effect our sewer plants, the ones where we spent all that money on in Burlington, they stay in effect. Other municipalities within the region are going to have to conform to those regulations. We're not throwing out all the regulations, we're not even postponing all the regulations. The only thing we're doing here is taking a step back to study some of the further development rules down the road that we know-- and no one has been able to show us yet --that they work at all, and they're going to cost our taxpayers upstream hundreds of millions of dollars. I can tell you the taxpayers of Burlington that paid, or are paying, that $25 million to upgrade that sewer plant. Now, that was a responsibility that we felt like we had to have clean water downstream, and we did that. Those rules stay in effect. We're not changing those. And with some of these more burdensome regulations that come down the road that we know don't work, I ask you to support the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker, members of the House. I'm not going to add to what's been said. It's been explained very well from my colleague from Burlington and from Representative Faircloth. I just want to add one note concerning Guilford and, to an extent, Alamance. I think Senator Gunn would agree. I've got the map here of this area, and one reason I support this bill wholeheartedly is just based on the geography. It makes very little sense to greatly impede development and commerce in Guilford and Alamance when they are connected to this lake only by the very narrow Haw River, which, most of the year, is just a big creek. Of course, that's not true when you get a big rainstorm, but it flows through miles and miles of countryside and links up with the lake at the very bottom of the lake just above the dam. The studies have shown, and I think this is right, that the water from the Haw arm stays in the lake only for eight days, on average. Most of the

Representative: lake is in the new hope arm. That is the big part of the lake. It is connected to the hop arm by a 5 or 6 mile narrow strait. You can look very clearly, if you want to, at the map. The big part of the lake is polluted from runoff from Chapel Hill, Durham, and those areas. It just does not make economic sense, to loose jobs and prosperity in Gilford and Alamance, to maybe spread the misery, but have very little real impact on that lake. So we in Gilford and the chamber of commerce, the city council, has asked for relief from these rules. It is very big majorities up there that need this bill, and humbly ask you to support this bill, so that we can have some job creation and economic growth and not… that won’t harm the lake at all in reality. So I ask for your support. Speaker: Representative Harvester, please state your purpose. Representative: To debate the bill. Speaker: Representative has the floor to debate the bill. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members, I will be very brief, but because I am from Gilford County, I want to chime in. I think this is a very reasonable approach: press the pause button, step back and look at it. I will simply echo what was said earlier by Representatives Bluss and Bearclaw, and I would appreciate your support on this bill. Speaker: Further discussion or debate? If not, the question before the house is the passage of the house committee substitute to senate bill 515 on its second reading. Those in favor will vote aye, those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will close the machine and record the vote: 66 having voted in the affirmative, 44 in the negative. House committee substitute for senate bill 515 has passed its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Representative Floyd, the chair was wondering whether or not the gentleman would support a motion to carry over the last bill on the calendar until tomorrow? Representative: Mr. Speaker, how controversy is that bill? [laughter] Speaker: Ladies and gentleman, without objection, the chair moves that senate bill 725 be removed from today’s calendar and recalendared for tomorrow. We do have one more conference report for concurrence. The chair assumes that we can dispose of that quickly, and that will end the calendar for this evening. So, without objection, we would ... the house bill 417 will be added to today’s calendar for immediate consideration and the motion will be for nonconcurrence. Is there objection? So ordered. House bill 417, the clerk will read. Clerk: Committee substitute for House bill 417, the bill is [xx] an act monitoring auditing statutes in large state departments and universities systems. Speaker: The clerk will read the amendments. Clerk: Senator Brown moves to amend the bill on page 2, line 35, by deleting that line. Speaker: Representative Hastings, please state your purpose.

Representative: Mr. Speaker, I did not object to your motion, but the rules chairman advises me that I need make a motion not to concur on HB17. Speaker: Further discussion on the amendment? I think the gentleman to properly stat the amendment. Amendment 1, there are two amendments that we have to vote not to concur on. So the motion will be not to concur in the senate amendment 1 to house committee substitute 2 for house bill 417. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. Ladies and gentleman, again, the motion is not to concur, that would be green. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 110 having voted in the affirmative, 1 in the negative. The motion passes. The clerk will read the second amendment. Clerk: Senator Brock moves to amend the bill on page 1, line 14, by adding… Speaker: Representative Carney the chair is aware that at this late hour the red and green… Representative: I have no problem with the late hour. It is a lot of people talking to me. Speaker: Does the lady wish the vote to be recorded as aye? Representative: Aye. Speaker: The lady will be the recorded as having voted aye on the nonconcurrence motion. Representative Hastings, please state your purpose. Representative: Not to concur, Mr. Speaker. Speaker: The motion is to not concur in the senate committee amendment 2 for house committee substitute 2 for house bill 417. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. the clerk will open the vote. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote: 111 having voted in the affirmative, none in the negative. The house does not concur in the house committee substitute 2 for house bill 417. The senate will be so notified. Representative Hastings, does the gentleman know the conferies? Conferies will be Hastings, Chair, Moore and Hager. Notices and announcements? Representative Moore is recognized for an announcement. Representative: Mr. Speaker, the rules committee will meet tomorrow morning at 10:15 am. Speaker: Representative Burr, please state your purpose. Representative: For a point of personal privilege. Speaker: The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. Representative: Thank you Mr. Speaker. You know you learn a lot when you sit with someone, and certainly, we get to know our seat mates better throughout our time in session, and you get to know them a little better when they are also your roommate. Today is an important day for my seat mate. Today is his birthday and he got to spend his day in the legislature, almost all of it entire. You know his age is really starting to show this morning. He left the apartment about five minutes before me and by the time I left, I probably went half a mile and caught up with him. He was driving in the left hand lane about 15 miles slower than the rest of traffic and it also appeared that he was talking to himself. So it certainly appears that not only is his age wearing him down, but so too is this building and what we are doing, but it is his birthday. I do want to wish Representative Hollow a happy birthday. He is certainly a respected member of this body and a well respected member among his community. He works very hard in the legislature but also, the moment we get out of session, is headed back home to take care of folks in his community – something that he does every week. He is really a hard worker. I just hope that you all will join me in wishing him a happy birthday today. [clapping]

Presentative Larry Hall please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. Speaker. What time are we gonna have sessions start [CROSSTALK] 11 A. M. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. For announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Democrats will caucus at 10 A. M. tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Starnes please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an annou [CROSSTALK] The gentleman is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Republicans will caucus at 9 o’clock in the morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To appeal to the Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, we’re, we’re windin’ down the session. And rule nine and rule ten is very important. We be windin’ down the session and I prefer not to be, prefer not, prefer you not apply rule nine to me. But if we can be a little bit obedient towards rule ten I think that we can expedite a lot of time tomorrow. So I, I just ask the Speaker if he’ll just be kind to us and look at rule ten. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the, on rule nine it is the gentleman, gentleman’s suggestion to suspend points of order. And on rule ten the gentleman’s point is well taken in terms of limitations on debate. As a serious point Representative Floyd, tomorrow could be a very long day. That’s why we are starting at 11. The chair anticipates as least one bill tomorrow that could consume a significant amount of time. And in every instance the, I think that you know that the chair has in instances where we want to limit debate. The practice is to allocate two thirds of the time to the minority and one third of the time to the majority. As we look at the calendar for tomorrow it would be the intention of the chair to be open to that should the minority be willing to, to negotiate. But that would be the only way with consensus that any debate would be limited. And hopefully we will. By the way we’re going to second you on the adjournment motion tonight. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McManus please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I was just gonna ask if tomorrow was the day to wear purple? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, technically what you wear tomorrow is most likely gonna be what you’re wearing on Friday. [LAUGH] And. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And so you may want to bring a spritzer or something. But the, the, if we will consult and this, this again is a very serious subject. We, we don’t always know what’s coming from the Senate. And so there may be a matter that comes over that in the opinion of the chair would be more appropriate for us to take up session some time around nine or so on Friday. Everything that we know at this point though that I believe that it is, it is likely that with the full concurrence of the minority the chair will entertain the, the idea of coming back and taking a third reading on at least one bill which requires third reading just after midnight. But that will only occur with the full concurrence of the minority caucus. In that case I think purple may be a safe bet for tomorrow. Further notices and announcements? Representative Moore is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn to reconvene on Thursday, July 25th, 2013 at 11 A. M. subject to ratification of bills, messages from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, receipt of conference reports. We refer all bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, and modifications to the calendar. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Floyd. Subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, receipt of committee reports, conference reports. We refer all bills and resolutions, appointment of conferees, and modifications to the calendar that the House now adjourn to reconvene on July 25th, 2013 at 11 A. M. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The House stands adjourned. [SOUND].