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

searching for

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

Senate | February 12, 2013 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

[SOUND] Senate will come to order. Sergeant at arms will close the doors. Members will go to their seats. Members and guests of the gallery, please silence all your electronic devices. Leading the Senate in prayer is the Reverend Peter Milner, Senate Chaplain. All members and guests in the gallery, please stand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Let’s pray. Heavenly father, we’re grateful to you today for somehow you have called us as people, as a community, into this great effort to see your world as a better place. And we want the beauty of your life to live here. To change and to rescue and to beautify, do all the things that make this place look a little bit more like heaven somehow. Give us tastes of it. We your people are your image bearers. Use us as your children, created to resemble your beauty. So my prayer for this body today is that they would know that they are made in the image of God. They are first image bearers. May that reality sink in today. You’re an awesome God. An awesome artist. May your fresh beauty fall down on these men and women, who have been created in your image. In the name of Jesus, we pray. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Berger is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. The journal of Monday, February 11, 2013 has been examined and has been found to be correct. I move that we dispense with the reading of the journal and that it stand approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate, let’s come to order please. Without objection, the journal for February 11 stands approved as written. We do have a nurse of the day with us today. Our nurse of the day is Angie Birch from Callabash, North Carolina. Angie, if you’ll please stand. Thank you for your service, for what you do every day, and thank you for being with us. [APPLAUSE] I’d also like to extend courtesies of the gallery to Olivia Watson and her family. If Olivia and family could please stand. Olivia was the first place winner of the South Columbus High School Future Farmers of America chapter in the North Carolina prepared public speaking contest, and Olivia also placed third in the nation. She is an 11th grader at South Columbus High School in Taber City. Olivia, congratulations for all your efforts and thank you for being here today. [APPLAUSE] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca has the floor for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President, members. Senate Resolution 66, agriculture education FFA day in North Carolina. Is currently in Committee on Rules. I ask that it be removed from Rules and be brought to the floor for immediate consideration. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Resolution 66, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Resolution 66, agriculture education and Future Farmers of America day in North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, would you like to explain? Senator Jackson, would you like to explain the resolution? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. Senate Resolution 66 is a resolution to honor North Carolina’s agricultural education program. The Future Farmers of America and to reserve National FFA week in North Carolina agricultural education and FFA day which is the day here. I represent a district that has a very active FFA programs and I’m proud to introduce Resolution 66, honoring North Carolina’s agricultural program, the Future Farmers of America, and to reserve National FFA week in the North Carolina agricultural education and FFA day. And on a personal note, with the average age of the American farmer being 57 years old, we need to do everything we can in our power, especially in a state that ranks number three in diversity in agriculture, to support our young folks that has any interest in agriculture and agribusiness. So I ask for your support of this resolution. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]

to any further discussion or debate. ?? the question for the for the Senate is the adoption of Senate Resolution 66. All in favor will vote aye. Opposed will vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting, and the clerk will record the vote. Forty-nine having voted in the affirmative and zero in the negative, Senate Resolution 66 is adopted. House bill four. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] House bill 4: Unemployment Insurance Fund Solvency and Program Changes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, to present the House bill 4. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor Senator Rucho. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr President, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate. House Bill 4 came over from the house in an effort to try to provide solvency with the unemployment fund which, according to testimony by the past chairman of the Employment Security Commission, was insolvent in the year 2009 and has remained that way even until today. We continue to be bleeding on a weekly and monthly basis because we're actually receiving less money than goes out in benefits, and we continue borrowing money from the federal government. Our goal with this bill is to provide solvency and to be sure that there is an unemployment fund for the citizens of this state as we face future unemployment problems or, potentially, another recession. At this moment we're not sitting there. What this bill tries to do is one in four parts increase the number of groups paying into the system, that includes the non-for-profits it includes cities and county and municipal governments who are put on a debit card type of arrangement where as they have unemployment experiences they will draw down from that unemployment and replenish it. There's been special consideration because of the challenges that the cities and counties have a little longer time to get to achieve the level of one percent of their unemployment benefits, but they are given a little bit more time to accomplish that. The second thing, and what the intent of this, was too try to provide resources while someone is let go from their job for no reason but unfortunately a slow down in business and their job was lost; and what this really should be called is reemployment rather than an unemployment fund. We're trying to put in North Carolinians back to work. What we're also doing is we are focusing a lot of attention and a lot of resources on the retraining prograsm which prepared our citizens for the new global jobs. Example: we have a number of welding jobs we're going to have training programs to help them prepare so that they can finish the program and be able to have gainful employment and become part of the American dream. The businesses, now, there seems to be a misunderstanding out here because people think that they actually provide funds for this. The only people that pay for the unemployment fund are the businesses in the state of North Carolina would pay the lion share, plus the organizations like the not-for-profit and/or city and state governments. Those are the groups that actually pay the bills not only the benefits that are paid for our unemployed but, more importantly, the interest too. So between the FUTA and SUTA taxes, there is a source of revenue basically from the business community who, under these economic times, are in great distress trying to survive and the last thing we really do is put additional burden on them, but unfortunately the federal government requires us to pay interest and to also pay down the debt. And for every year that we have a debt with the federal government on this and, ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, we are at about 2.5 billion dollars; that's four times worse than its ever been to in the history of the fund. So in reality we have a monumental task to reestablish solvency, but there is an automatic

?? ?? tax increase of 83 percent for every year that will happen that to contention that he that believed for you that made a mess we find that option times they'll actually does not happen when then-to-end of this bill is too high, to actually hear of the distances to me that you can't have that, and actually Z-southeastern states and so did not act as if he tries to take an employee-esteem and as soon as this hasn't been excessive and an oddity in today's last year-end rush of hand-made by adding too late, some of the employees to pay for this time is of limited tax on that time he envisions an issue price of the scene of the state has announced up here dryly and give information to 30 at the center of the -sensitive about time as the best writer and a two-session in tile spread it sent to saint john's Seattle center enforcement of the on-site to say we certainly have wanted the summit meeting between a fun time in hours and where we're that we always seem to be as quickly as possible that some of the key to a reasonable doubts in terms of the winning for the listener stay there is not one time event wouldn't be seen by seizing the lines of Indiana and would form the Indian people impacted by the recession and the running system downtime in the event into the increase in division 535 dollars a week of the country 50 we have a substantial house fires came off the island of Saint Leonard hare's into the respect is the windows of intensity for incest is one of your international and cars and three counts for a refund riled up he could be a date for the number of things that we don't think about the respects the damage, but it is important in as time of sentencing for fear of hopefully I'll send his in-the same music director and six women dry legislative mandate not enough of them have undertaken in enlisting to this alternative is being put before you the time you'll have the added to think about it with open mind it does it represent opportunity for us to call times India as the slides into a holding call them into the defending his own homes and that was time in their own businesses industries employers in the state if that's the data remain the same amount of its abilities of 14 of those into the zone of evidence mounts and riled the impulse to be done this and as we have them into the air-quality of the Federal emergency benefits write a love you all have actively six points drive and the mission was to lead the company is his provide long-term one and one of the snow to qualify with the aid of these today I'll see if the season's substantial and whether the policies sometime and others included 7000 people reinvented to the disadvantage of users who are knowledgeable and riley's Federal extended -dominated the second and that of citizens misstating the; others are coming into Michael to others at halftime that some intensity of the attitudes of-the-bums in the maximum amount that is making that means timings with the city government, saying he says that when weeks of-the-then it appears in the CNN on one of the state's ½ times on defense, day and 120% of the human activity, well into the NBA for ??..........

?? What that basically means, a person could have lost a job where they were making anywhere between $30,000 to $50,000 a year. If they were getting that minimum benefit of basically $350 a week a job came along that $22,000 a year, they’d be forced to take it. What this bill does, it gives them a little more latitude. A little bit more capacity to seek employment that’s more comparable to the employment that they left because it sets it at 140% of the weekly benefit. It also strikes a balance. You look at the $535 end, you look at $350 on the other. What this amendment would do is set it right smack in the middle at $442 a week. I think it’s a far more reasonable place for us to be. Now what it would require, in terms of funds to get us there, is a minute contribution from employees, less that one half of one per cent to help us get there. Now, we were able to contribute that and I don’t think there’d be a big problem with that. We have other states that are doing it that way. States like New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Alaska. It can get us solvent in the same amount of time as the original bill. Again, the highlight. Employers will pay no more. We have employees able to receive additional benefits up to $442 a week, will make certain that when alternative employment that comes around they can take jobs that may not be comparable to the jobs they left, but certainly not jobs that will put them in a position where they have to take $22,000 a year when they might have left a job that paid $30 or $40 or $50,000 a year. And, most importantly, it gets our state to a point where we will be solvent in terms of our unemployment compensation fund. What this bill basically does as well is that contributions to employees, we get it to $1 billion and we’re solvent, it falls off. If we fall below the $1 billion again, it kicks back in. But it keeps us solvent. Everybody has some skin in the game. Everybody contributes a bit, but it achieves a reasonable, equitable, fair balance, and it doesn’t do it on the unemployed that are less fortunate, it doesn’t put a burden on those that are using this fund to buy them the necessities of life. It does not impose an undue burden upon anyone, but we all have skin in the game. We all share in what we need to do to get our unemployment fund solvent. It pays the debt out off in exactly the same amount of time as the original bill. If we were in any other chamber in any other situation, here in North Carolina, and we had people sitting around the table trying to come up with a compromise that is fair and reasonable and balanced, this is a point, and this is a position where we would logically get to. I ask you today to forget about party affiliation, look at what’s good for the solvency of the state of North Carolina, look at what’s good for our employees. Look at what’s good to make our unemployment compensation fund solvent. Give this idea, give this concept some thoughtful reflection. You can vote it down in an instant, but you’ll be voting down an opportunity to be fair, an opportunity to be more compassionate with those citizens that find theirselves in these points in their lives where they really have no place else to turn to. I’ve met so many people that’ve been unemployed over the last five years that it hurts and it burdens my heart to know that frequently the only thing they have is this lifeline of survival in a critical time of need. We should be aware of that. We should try to strike that reasonable balance that this amendment offers. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca has the floor to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know, Senator McKissick makes some very good points and I always enjoy hearing his commentary and I think everyone in this room feels sorry for those who are not working and need a lifeline sent to them and looked after. As you read through this, as they say, the devil’s in the details. Page 1 line 12 and 13. It is hard for me to fathom that we go to folks working now and say we’re going to add a tax to you to pay additionally at the end of the year or whenever with the things they’re already facing as working and employed and having to raise families and make ends meet, so I understand what we’re trying to do here and I think Senator Rucho...

hit the nail on the head we try to be as fair and equitable as we could when we dealt with the 2.4 billion or 2.5 it's up to now that we owe the feds but I cant see placing that on the backs of the working people so for that reason I'll have to vote against this amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak a second time [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho has the floor to speak [SPEAKER CHANGES] excuse me not on the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] speak to the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] debate on the amendment sorry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick had someone arrainged this same idea in its original format because in reality a fairer way would be like we do for health insurance, disability insurance, unemployment insurance was done this way it would probably be a better way of accomplishing in the future but unfortunately for this we've already studied this completely. Representative Howard has done a tremendous job in putting together a Bill from the House side that will deliver by 2015 paid off all the debt and the interest plus in a very short period after that a billion dollars worth of reserves and this is to important an issue to take a risk with this kind of unstudied plan so in reality I will say to you that I urge the members of the Senate to vote oppose against this Amendment so that we can move this bill forward and provide solvency to a very important unemployment insurance fund. It is something that is critical at this time and the faster we can get out and in place everybody can make plans for how this will be implemented thank you [SPEAKER CHANGES] any further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr President [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] speak a second time on the Amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick has the floor to speak a second time [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's unfortunate that we aren't at the point in time when we can thoughtfully look at opportunities to strike these type of reasonable balances things that really would be pure compromises in any other context other than within the confines of this room when we feel as if we need to stick with the caucus or stick with a collective position cause this represents a reasonable compromise of competing interests it does not burden employers who we have heard so much about and it does get the debt paid back in the same amount of time that we need to. With that said I can read the handwriting on the wall so I withdraw the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McKissick withdraws amendment 1 so the bill unamended is back before us is there any further discussion or debate? Senator Nesbitt what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank You Mr President. Sent forth an amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] do the members have copies Senator? [SPEAKER CHANGES] they should have yes sir [SPEAKER CHANGES] if members have copies you can send forward your amendment. The clerk will read [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt moves to amend the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt is recognized to explain the amendment [SPEAKER CHANGES] thank you Mr President and members of the Senate I will tell you to the best of my knowledge to those who were in the finance committee this is the same amendment I ran in the committee it's rather hard to read but its pretty simple in process. It basically puts the effective date off until January. Were in a situation where and you've seen the numbers we have a tremendous number of people that are gonna be laid off of the extended benefits. I think we've estimated that some 170 thousand people when its said and done will lose those benefits and the state will lose the income which I think is badly needed right now to get this economy restarted. the reason were having this difficulty with the un-insurance fund is because this recession has gone on now forever. This system worked well since 1930 something and all of a sudden we have a deep deep recession I think it was a depression I thin the country was permanently devalued and it has lasted so long that it is put us in this shape and I think when we get a little bit of money back in the flow in this economy in North Carolina you'll see it come back around. I was talking with the home builders earlier today and they lost 100 thousand workers, until you get that construction

?? industry moving again, you're not going to have decent employment in this state, period. I offered this in the committee and we had a discussion about whether or not that delay of 6 months would mean that you'd have to pay an extra year of the penalties---for business, not that I would want that to happen. If you read the bill, there's a provision in there that sets up a committee to look at this and monitor it and make recommendations and stuff as to what we can do. And I'm telling you, this is a real possibility, if you go over into that year---I think it was '16---anyhow, if this county doesn't pick back up, your assumptions are wrong; it's going to take longer to pay it back. There are any number of ways to prevent that from happening and giving business some certainty out here. I had my Chief of Staff make some calls to the Treasurer's office today---and the Treasurer's out of state at the moment, so I couldn't speak with her---but I spoke with them about the possibility of taxpayer anticipation notes. If you get to the year '15 and it looks like you're going to have $400 million left, which would ?? all the penalties for '16, I think at that time you could issue those taxpayer anticipation notes for that $400 million, pay for it out of the ?? fund---you could even increase the ?? tax to pay for it---and business would get a better deal than they'd get in paying that penalty. And that would keep it from going over into the next year. There are any number of ways to do this. I keep running into a brick wall when I try to do something, and I've reached the conclusion that there are those in the state that don't want people to have these benefits. And you hear some of the anecdotal stuff about how there are people that are just deadbeats out here: I can tell you this, when you think of the 100,000 people leaving the construction industry, those are hardworking people and I guarantee you every one of them would take a job if they could find one. There just ISN'T one. Nothing's being built right now. And they probably don't have the skills to take modern-day jobs; I know some of them are getting them. But they just don't have a job, and that's what's going on out there. If we want to---and Senator McKissick offered you an amendment a while ago that showed you plenty of alternative ways to do this that doesn't hurt these people that are unemployed---I'm offering you something that will keep all of the long-term unemployed receiving benefits until they expire in January. It's a win-win for this state. The old saying is, "I can keep telling you, but I can't make you understand." And I've done about all of it I know to do, but if we don't take advantage of this situation and we flush all that money, it'll be because that's what you wanted to do, not because that's what we had to do. And I would urge you to pass the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President--- [OVERLAPPING VOICES] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor, sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We did discuss this at length during the Finance Committee, and it was clear that any further extension or changing of the provisions of the bills, including the weekly benefits, will cause an extension; and the analysis we looked at from Upjohn showed that it would probably take a year in additional time, which would force the businesses to go up to about $140 per employee---if I'm correct about that, but I'm sure it's higher than what it is under the proposal. And when you talk about putting people back to work by increasing taxes which could lead to about 400 million new dollars above what the---already---burden is on the business community to pay this back, both interest and principal, then that does nothing by adding additional cost on businesses to create more jobs, that will probably LOSE jobs. And there are members in this Senate that could discuss that with you as they've analyzed this bill and this proposal, trying to decide how it would impact THEIR businesses. And what we fear is that there will be an increase in unemployment, rather than a decrease, and that would be a contrary indicator to what we're trying to accomplish here, and that's put people back to work and get this fund solvent. And we've got a nice, broad-based approach, well-documented--- [End of audio]

As to how it would be successful, and in that saying, I urge you to vote down amendment number 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein, with what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Stein has the floor to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] As Senator Nesbitt already identified, there's tax exempts into ?? notes, you can lower the suitor rate. There's a number of mechanisms available in the year 2015 to deal with this three to four hundred million in extra ?? taxes that may get imposed in 2016. That's assuming that it actually does get paid off in 2015. If it goes to November 12 or 13, 2015, that extra ?? of tax is gonna be imposed under your plan anyway for 2016. But the point is, let's just assume that happens. Let's assume that there's three to four hundred million in ?? and taxes that have to be paid in 2015, and we've paid it off that much later. Well, where does that extra three to four hundred million go? It goes to us. It goes to our account, it goes to our savings account to build the balance back up. It's a forced savings program, and what happens when that account gets up to a billion dollars? Well, then automatic statutory trigger lowers the ?? taxes. It's not like this money is going anywhere other than to our own benefit, our own fund balanced account, so what we're trading off is paying a little bit extra on food and taxes that goes back into our own pocket in 2016 for 780 million dollars in benefit today, which the Secretary of Labor just sent us out, gets multiplied by a factor of 2 when going through the economy. That is money that goes to pay landlords, that is money that goes to drug stores, supermarkets. That is money that goes in people's gas tanks, to car repair. This is economic development for 170,000 people in 2013, today, when we have 9.2% unemployment and we need this economic activity desperately. Please vote for this amendment. Even if you want to permanently shrink unemployment benefits for injured people, I mean unemployed people who lost their jobs through no fault of their own and are actively looking for work today. Please vote for this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Richards, with what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I wanted to refresh Senator Stein's memory. This general assembly, we tried diligently to talk to the federal delegation, specifically in the senate, trying to get them to give us a grandfather, which would have saved us all of this challenge, which may have unfortunately fell on death ears from our delegation in the senate, and so under that program it put us under a disadvantage. Yet we were still committed and still required to get this fund solvent, but Senator Stein at any point during the year we could get a grandfather from the department of labor, as they did in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Arkansas, and Rhode Island, to allow us to do that and when that happens we can make the adjustments accordingly, but til then we cannot afford to pull 400 million in new dollars out of this economy, which will cause some additional unemployment increases and will put an additional burden, and we'll probably have a bigger problem with unemployment than we presently have. I will reiterate the fact that I believe the amendment number 2 should be defeated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question for the senate is the passage of amendment 2. All in favor will vote Aye. All opposed will vote no. 5 seconds will be allowed for the voting, and the clerk will record the vote. Clerk. Senator ?? ?? [SPEAKER CHANGES] No. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 17 having voted in the affirmative and 32 in the negative, the bill fails. Is there any further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Parmon, with what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, do the members have copies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, they do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may send forth your amendment, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Parmon wishes to amend a bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you.

few members. This amendment would only do three things and that’s to allow good causes for leaving. It would allow a worker to draw unemployment if the reason for leaving is a disability or the health of an immediate family member. If it’s undue hardship in the family, such as not being able to have someone to care for a child that’s in your legal custody or a spouse relocation, if your spouse leaves to relocate to a job and you have to leave because of the distance, that would be a good cause. I’ve talked to staff, there is no cost, it’s negligible cost if anything. I just think this makes good sense for people that will not be able to work for good causes and that’s all this amendment adds to the bill. I ask you to vote for this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there and further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate amendment number three. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho to debate amendment three. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Whenever you are adding benefits and extending benefits, you’re adding cost to it, there’s no way around that. Something we need to remember, why this unemployment insurance fund was put together and that was to provide a bridge for those that have lost their jobs for no reason of their own, and what that means is that it is to re-employ that individual. Now, there is some circumstances that Senator Parmon set forward, which should be managed by another government assistance program and not by the unemployment program. This is the kind of changes that’ve been made over the last number of years by adding additional benefit upon benefit, similar to what they’ve done on social security that has caused these programs to get insolvent. By doing that, all we’re doing is contributing to the problem and what we’re going to see is a bigger problem in the future and I would recommend, Senator Parmon, look at an additional government program to try achieve her goal… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ...and I’ll finish speaking first. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho will finish speaking Senator Nesbitt. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ...and try to finish. Look at this as a way, or another way of managing this particular concern that she has. That being said, amendment number three, I would recommend that the Senate say no to amendment number three. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt. for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Nesbitt has the floor to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, if you look at these three reasons that were pointed out, I think Senator Parmon is trying to show you how easy it would be to help in certain instances. The one that section four, as I read it, a single mom making minimum wage somewhere, is laid off because she can’t work the night shift because she doesn’t have anybody to keep her child, is not entitled to draw unemployment benefits while she finds another job. What do we have the unemployment fund for? That’s the same thing as being fired if you’re put in the choice of whether or not you leave your child by themselves or you go to work? That’s not anything that’s reasonable. I’ve been told all day that all of this was decided at some higher level and we’re not going to consider any reasonable amendments in here, but I wasn’t told that by a Senator, by the way, that was by the crowd that’s lobbying us, but for goodness sakes, slow down a little bit and look at some of this stuff. Some of it just makes sense. These people don’t have another choice. You got to give them a choice. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there and further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage amendment three. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting. The clerk will record the vote. Jenkins. Jenkins, ducked out. 16 having voted in the affirmative and 32 in the negative, amendment three fails and the bill unamended is back before the body. Is there and further discussion or debate?

Senator McLaurin, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. I rise to speak to the bill and offer an amendment. I think it's been distributed. First of all, I want to say to Senator Rucho... [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, we need to read the amendment in before you speak to it, so the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McLaurin moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator McLaurin has the floor to speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, you have the floor to speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, very much. Senator Rucho and those who drafted the bill, let me say as a businessman for over 30 years, I commend you for the efforts to reform our unemployment insurance program and process, and I think the emphasis on re-training, preparing people for new jobs in the marketplace are certainly something very positive as a result of this, and so hopefully it will help get people more back into the workforce. But I'm trying to simplify this by the concern I have about the rural communities. I represent five counties in the Senate, two of them have unemployment around 12%, one has unemployment almost at 17%. And the section that, 9614.3, Duration of Benefits, I'm simply just saying that we eliminate the section that applies to the duration of payments corresponding to State-wide unemployment rate. In counties like Scotland County, which has an almost 17% unemployment rate, frankly, unemployment rate is always higher than the State-wide average. And I'm saying that those rural communities, many of which you all represent here in this body, would benefit from perhaps receiving 20 weeks pay and so the sliding scale would just in effect be eliminated as a result of this amendment. And I think it would help rural counties all across North Carolina who frankly always have higher unemployment rate than the State average. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any further discussion or debate? Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate Amendment No. 4, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho has the floor to debate Amendment 4. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is welcome to have one of our colleagues, a business colleague from the back row coming forward with suggestions. We are always welcome those good ideas, but in this case, what we see here is something that would, the bill is crafted very tightly so that it is a balanced bill. And what we're trying to do is find no way of adding to the cost of the employers in this situation. And what I see here is that it will add to that cost. So under that circumstance I would say that Amendment 4 should be defeated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of Amendment 4. All in favor will vote aye, oppose the vote no. Five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. Seventeen having voted in the affirmative and thirty-two in the negative. Amendment 4 fails and the bill, unamended, is back before the body. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodard, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forward an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator, do the members have copies? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, sir. They do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You can send forward your amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodard moves to amend the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Woodard, you have the floor to speak to your amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. President. There's an old saying, "Never let a good crisis go to waste." Ladies and gentlemen of the Senate, that is exactly what House Bill 4 is doing. It is using the crisis of the great recession and unprecedented unemployment to drastically alter our State's unemployment insurance program. Not just to get us through this Federal debt crisis, but to alter the system permanently. This amendment very simply proposes that businesses and our unemployed citizens share the pain of this...

Crisis, until our debt has been paid back to the federal government. But once that obligation has been met then our program returns to its current structure. make no mistake during this repayment period, the provisions of this bill will be difficult for unemployed residents. Their benefit cuts will outweigh employers federal and state tax costs by more than two to one. But as proposed this bill prolongs the pain after the debt is paid by eliminating the employers additional - additional employers costs, but retain the benefit cuts permanently. Ladies and gentleman this is a drastic reform of our unemployment insurance. A total recalibrating of the balance system we have maintained for years. And it's done under the duress of this debt payback. The notion that significantly decreased unemployment taxes will create jobs and attract businesses form other states, flies in the face of logic and of reality. A small business owner from my district just emailed me just this very morning the point of [??] that these payments represent just a few cents of the hourly compensation costs to his business. And this amendment would not reset our system to some funding scheme proposed this year or in 2011 but instead returns it to the law where it was back in 1993. So when it comes to unemployment insurance, ladies and gentlemen we've dug ourselves into a hole that we must climb out. But please, please, don't leave our unemployed workers down there when the rest of us get out. I urge you to adopt this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca for what purpose do you rise? To speak on the amendment please. Senator Apodaca you have the floor to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There's another old saying the best way to predict future behavior is to look at past behavior, So, with that in mind, if we sit here and say, oh, okay, what we've done is correct, and moving forward it's gonna be different, I think that's another definition of something that's not right. So in looking at this I don't know why in the world we'd want to go back to the way we used to be, that's what got us here to begin with. So I ask that we defeat this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Water for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Water has the floor to speak to the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Good ol' eastern North Carolina boy and mountain resident like senator Apodaca we could probbaly trade old sayings all day, and I certainly wouldn't suggest that we keep going back, but lets not make a decision. Let's not drastically alter and overhaul the current system, flawed though it may be, under duress. We're in the bottom of the well, the rain is coming, lets get out of that before we totally alter and make permanent decisions on our unemployment insurance system. I would urge you to approve the amendment. Lets back up and lets take a look at this some future time. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none the question before the senate is the passage of amendment five, all in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] [??] [SPEAKER CHANGES] 17 having voted in the affirmative and 32 in the negative, amendment five fails, the bill unamended is back before the body. [SPEAKER CHANGES] mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill and to ask Senator Rucho a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho would you yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Rucho this whole system was built on a principle, which is you have a trust fund that you build in a good economy and then it's there during the lean times when the economy goes down those funds are there. Do you know how many time sin the 1990's employers came to this legislature and got cuts of their contribution when times were flush? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I will say to you Senator Kinnaird that during the nineties there was over a billion dollars of assets available in the fund and continually growing...

[??] times were good. And along with that there was a reduction in the rate, there was also an increase in the benefits, and in that circumstance that is a bad combination. What we are doing in this bill is establishing comparable benefit rates, benefits available for the unemployment that will allow them to sustain until they can find their next job. And more importantly we're also putting trigger mechanisms in there that if the fund drops below a certain level there's an automatic tax increase on the employers so that we constantly leave that funding there so that we can guarantee that we'll have a good reserve fund in there for the hard times, and also make sure that our fund remains solvent and physically in balance. And yes that is how we are trying to handle the good and the bad times. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird for what purpose do you rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Kinnaird has the floor to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I'll tell you how many times, six reductions during the good times, the fat years. Just like the bible says, the fat years. Ninety-two, temporary appeal of the 20% surcharge put on in eighty-seven. Ninety-three the standard combination rate was cut from 3.7 to 2.25. In Ninety-four again from 2.25 to 1.8, and on and on and on. A billion dollars. The principle is that we put a trust fund in a position to take care of those times, and yet over and over the employers came as so there were no lean times ever coming up. This is a bad bill because it hurts the employees. The employers asked for help then, we gave them help, and yet we're not giving employees help this time around. And I think that Senator Woodward's position is very important, we're making it permanent, we're not even using the principles that we've had, trigger yes but we've already cut these so low that it's almost meaningless. We are hurting our people. We helped their employers when they asked for our help even though it wasn't the wisest thing to do. And now why aren't we helping our employees? I urge you to vote against the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr.President to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Tucker has the floor to speak to the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and gentleman of the senate, I've been reluctant to speak out but being a small business owner I certainly wan to take this opportunity to somewhat take up for the businesses that are represented here in this state that Senator Kinnaird, employ people, not the unemployed. We employ people. I was vocal in opposition of this bill early on, I will vote for it today because my business, other businesses didn't start this recession. We didn't have anything to do with making this recession. We didn't make the decisions in the nineties and in the two thousands to reduce the rate to employers. They came and asked and those people in charge then on the other side of the aisle should have said no, because as you've said Ms. Kinnaird it was not a wise decision. That's why we find ourselves in this position today. I didn't set the rates for unemployment in the nineties and in the two thousands, and I did not have anything to do when the recession hit for the lack of rainy day fund. Physical staff said we had $440 million dollars available when the recession hit, because those in charge never planned as if, you said senator Kinnaird, a recession. And so what happened? We drew is out in a matter of a month. So when we run the numbers out I talked to my controller before this session. Senartor Kinnaird these evil companies who provide jobs for people like mine, we went form 104 people down to 34 in the recession. I almost lost my business. And one of the things Raleigh doesn't get is the last person to get paid in a recession is the owner of the business. I joke sometimes but I've gone through this scenario, you haven't lived in business until you pay payroll on a credit card. And let me tell you, that's a tough time. But my business is 40 years old and it survived, but my controller tells me that we're gonna pay roughly $1429 per employee...

Speaker: We have 7 employees in the ?? back up economy is moving little we could able hear people by so my unemployment tax this year would 110033 dollars that's my unemployment before i turn on the lights before i put gas in the first company truck before i pay the first employees i gotta pay a 110000 in a employment tax ?? tax.Therefore ?? very difficult for me to vote to do anything for this bill because i want this monkey as business is back as soon as possible and to do that we must vote for this bill we reduce the benefits in the sense that unemployed folks through ?? cannot do anything but continue to draw yes senator folks are abused the and i know that but to continue to put 400 million dollars on the backs of business and make us pay for that to extent these befits i will be lucky to keep all my folks employed i mean have to one lay off or two people just to pay this tax because tax has changed behavior and if your business man or running a business the first thing you do is to get overhead if you gotta pay additional tax so i don't know hat your economy holds if you holds up ?? but business is been employer this on ?? for backs of business on the backs of business and I'm gonna pay and I'm gonna vote for this tax has increased on my business today and i do reluctantly but i say something only for those employees here in the state thank you, Speaker Changes: Any further discussion or debate, Speaker Changes: Mr.President, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? for what purpose you ask, Speaker Changes: To speak to he bill, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? has the floor to speak to the bill Speaker Changes: I too have sat here for the ?? and i had amendment earlier but it was covered well ?? however i still wanna talk a little bit about the other side that i don't see covered din the bill and from wrong you can tell me i hear you talking about the bill is very certainly we have to pay this dead down i fully agree our responsibility i heard the issue about we need to hear the businesses we need to be fair to the state we heard about unemployed people loves their jobs never know the things about it i have heard amendment said well let's sunset this when i did this pay that were employed i heard about the issues high as two quarter in terms of been increasing their benefits all of that went away even of the disabled people who can help themselves you voted all that well down ?? what we know employees is so high and feared about opportunities we know the that those states high of all yet employers to come we know that for fact but i haven't heard the thing about the unemployed people in our state there are pleasant man in our community who called me and said even the last year we were fighting about 20 weeks or 26 weeks and he said i work 30 years on this job and they laid me off first reduced my pay and they laid me off and i gotta disabled daughter in my home and i cannot pay for the food and utilities and haven't heard address the thing how heard just as hard who and i do just they there are profits and ?? just as everyday anything that will help him after we pay the better why we are paying the ?? extra I'm very disappointed i share your concern and part of getting rid of the depth that's my responsibility too but I'm also responsible for looking out our citizens of our state who cannot look after themselves who has no voice for themselves I'll vote against the bill, Speaker Changes: Mr.President, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? for what purpose you ask, Speaker Changes: To speak on the bill, Speaker Changes: Senator ?? has the floor to speak on the bill, Speaker Changes: Thank you, Speaker Changes: Early i send forth an amendment and,

I too, understand that we have a responsibility to be fiscal stable, and I do think we need to do all we can to get there. But earlier, Senator Rucho stated the people in my amendment could get help from some other agency, I'm not sure whether he said government or not, but I don't know of another agency that helped the people that my amendment addressed. And, I get it, that some people may think that after having worked a number of years and getting laid off, that some people have become dependent on unemployment benefits, but what I don't get is that this bill that we're debating here today, that on July 1st, 2013, cuts out benefits for more than 170,000 workers in this state. And although these benefits are 100% federally funded, and would bring an estimated $780 million into this state to help families make ends meet while unemployed and seeking work. Earlier, as the Chaplain was planning, and he said something similar to us in North Carolina seeing our state is a little piece of heaven, as we talked about this piece of legislation, my mind was also drawn to Proverbs, Erb Chapter around the 27th verse and it reads, Withhold not good from them to whom it is due, when it is in the power of thine hands to do it. And colleagues I submit to you, that you have the power to do the right thing for the unemployed citizens of this state today, by voting no on this bill. I will be voting no. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Further discussion, further debate. Senator McKissick, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator McKissick, you have the floor to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Let me be pretty brief, but to the point. If this bill had been in effect back in 2008, when this recession hit, of the people that received unemployment benefits today, if you had looked having an effect that $350 maximum benefit, we'd have over 132,000 people would have been negatively impacted. 132,000 who would have been impacted by that benefit reduction, $535 a week to $350 a week. That's a real face. If you looked at how many would have been impacted had this bill been in place in 2008, a reduction in the number of weeks, from 26 weeks down to 20, yes, putting it at 20, you're talking about 2/3rds of the people, roughly about 440,000. That's the difference it would have made over the last 5 years or so, since 2008. And our economy, while it's picking up steam today, and our unemployment rates still up around 9.2%, had those benefits not come into people's hand, and they haven't been spending that money, we wouldn't even be spuming around long at that pace, the unemployment rate would be even higher. And it's almost inconceivable that we in North Carolina are about to turn away approximately $800 million in federal benefits that are free to us. Absolutely free. $800 million, another 170,000 people we'll turn our back upon. I hate to think of the way this will be cast, not just here in North Carolina, but outside of North Carolina, in terms of our law makers putting this type of Draconian policy into place. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Mr, President. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Jackson, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES]To speak on the bill, briefly. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senator Jackson has the floor to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you, sir. You know, I've sat here, and I listened to the pros and the cons of this bill. And Senator Tucker, I want to tell you, I'd don't guess I've ever been unemployed, but I've been broke many times, broker and borrowing on credit cards, when you have to borrow money from an employee to make payroll. I've been there, and it's unfair. So, I've got compassion for these unemployed

people. I've been in their shoes, but we've talked about hindsight things, what we should have could have done. I can't control hindsight folks, and there's no one sitting in this room right now that can change the past. Because if they could, we'd all have done things differently. I did not like this bill, I like Senator Tucker ???, Senator Rucho for three months probably, about this bill at least. I still am not crazy about this bill. But, it is the best alternative we've got at this time. Our forefathers that stood on this floor, when they reduced those benefits ???, that what they thought was right. And I was sent up here to make hard decisions. And I have made some hard decisions in my life. And this is one of them. But we've got to look to the future, we've got to have hope that things are gonna get better, and Senator Nesbitt, you were right, I don't anybody anywhere knew this recession or depression, as you call it, and I agree, was gonna last this long. But we have got to give our employers a fair and balanced program. And we have not had that. But we do have it in this bill. No, it's not perfect, and no, it's not gonna solve all our woes here in this state, but it is a step in the right direction. And I believe, from the bottom of my heart, that was part of the reason I was sent to Raleigh, was to make these hard decisions. And I encourage you to vote for this bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant for a purpose to your eyes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Bryant has the floor to speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I just want to make a few comments about the balance in the bill between what we need to do for employers to pay the debt, and also for what we need to do for the unemployed workers and their families, remembering that we're talking about people unemployed through no fault of their own. I think I could, though I disagree, feel more comfortable if the bill did just what it needed to do to address the physical aspects, the monetary aspects of the problem we face. That is, what we really need to do to pay the debt off, to minimize the exposure of our employers to the twenty-one-dollar-per-employee penalty, showing that time period, all of that. There are other aspects of this bill that are punitive to workers that are saying somehow we feel like you aren't good enough to be, to have the respect of the benefits that we have previously offered you. Such is the changing of the Good Calls Provisions and requiring, and the provisions of suitable work. Requiring people regardless of the class of work they have been engaged in to be required to take any level of job offered them or lose all benefits for themselves or their families. To not regard issues of the reasons for being out of work beyond our means, beyond our control like the disability of yourself or your family, for example. There are certain provisions like that are just punitive and harsh to workers that have no relationship to the monetary arrangements we need to make to get the debt paid off, and I just feel we need to be honest about that. And, separate, and this was hard for me to just sit and hear that the fiscal aspects without amplifying that part. And I wish we would be willing to be fair about that part to our workers and not add punitive provisions to them in addition to the monetary changes that we feel a need to make in order to pay back the debt and reduce the burden on the employers. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any further discussion or debate? Hearing none, the question before the Senate is the passage of the Committee Substitute House Bill 4 on its second reading. All in favor will vote aye, opposed will vote no, five seconds will be allowed for the voting and the clerk will record the vote.

36 having voted in the affirmative and 13 in the negative Committee substitute House Bill 4 passes its second reading and will remain on the calendar. It was brought to my attention Senators that we had some Future Farmers of America up in the gallery. If any of you are left up here would you please stand? I don't see them in the gallery today but if you see these young folks walking around with their blue jackets on make sure you say hello to them. Obviously agriculture is a $70 billion industry in our state and these folks are keeping it going. So thank them when you see them. Also I'd like to upon a motion of Senator Graham, Ford, Tarte, Rucho and Clodfelter of Mecklenburg County the Chair is happy to extend the courtesies of the gallery to Loren Phelps, Charlie Palmer, Jason Hartzo and Edward Brenson if they're still with us as members of the UNC-Charlotte Student Government. Are they still here today? They're up there. Thank you all for being here with us. Are there any further notices or announcements? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Berger for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Berger you have the floor to make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President I have a couple of committee changes to hand up to the Clerk. State and local government remove Cook, Appropriations Justice and Public Safety add Apodaca Vice Chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator. You can send that forward. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Jackson, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator you have the floor for your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you sir. You know last session we had the Ag Caucus and we ended that with about 47 members in that. It's a joint between the House and the Senate and we've been encouraged to get it started back again this year and we will have our first meeting tomorrow morning. It will be a joint Senate and House Ag and ?? Caucus meeting in Room 414 beginning at 8:00 a.m. and I hope you can join us. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator. Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, two announcements please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca has the floor to make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Members, tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. in room 425 of the LOB there will be a Senate Select Committee on the UNC Board of Governors meeting held. At that time we will consider Senate Resolution 46, Election of UNC Board of Governors. Additional announcement Mr. President if I might? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You have the floor for your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. The majority party will caucus immediately after session. Same room. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other notices or announcements? Senator Nesbitt, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes Mr. President. To make an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator you have the floor to make your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Democrats will caucus immediately after session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other notices or announcements? Is there any further business to come before the Senate? Senator Rucho, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator you have the floor to make your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There will be a Finance Committee tomorrow at 1:00. It will be recorded and the Energy Bill will be, and a portion of the Energy Bill will be discussed in that meeting. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator. Any further business to come before the Senate? Senator Graham, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator you have the floor to make your announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mecklenburg delegation meeting tomorrow morning at 7:30 a.m. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Any other notices or announcements? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator Apodaca, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Point of personal privilege if I might. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senator you have the floor for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. President. Members. Senator ?? gave a very eloquent rendition or historical account of streaking in the paper the other day and I thought that was quite informative. I don't know where to go with that so we're going to switch tactics but one of the first college campuses streaking happened at I think it's in the Guinness Book of World Records was Western Carolina University and it is also a little known fact that Senator Brock was the original streaker at Western so give him a congratulations when you see him. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there any further business to come before the Senate? Senator Tillman for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President, I'm assuming that this would have been done but in case I forget I would like for us to dismiss today in memory of Senator Brown's mother who passed earlier this morning. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Senator. Is there any further business to come before the Senate?

If now the chair recognizes Senate will vote for motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] English President I move the Senate do now adjourned subject to the introduction of bills in resolutions, the receipt of committee reports and the receipt of messages from the House and the Governor to reconvene tomorrow Wednesday February 13, 2013 at 2 P.M. and I ask that we do this memory of Senator Brown's mother. In motion is at the Senate do now in gen journed ?? subject to the stipulations stated by Senator Bodo and in honour of Buelah or Blien, Senator Brown's mother to reconvene Wednesday February 13th at 2 P.M. seconded by Senator Daniel, All in Favour will say Aye, [SPEAKER CHANGES] AYE [SPEAKER CHANGES] Oppose 'No'. Yes having the Senate stands adjourned.