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 | April 16, 2013 | Committee Room | House Agriculture

Full MP3 Audio File

Our first bill today will be House Bill 517. Representative Jones, you are recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. House Bill 17 is a local bill for Rockingham County only, and it provides for no right-of-way spotlighting for hunting. You say, well, that should be the case already. The law, as it currently exists, does not allow hunting deer or game animals with right-of-way spotlight, but what people tend to do in getting out of being convicted for that is they say they're hunting coyotes, and so we don't want coyotes in Rockingham County, but we recognize that public right-of-way spotlighting is dangerous, and so Rockingham County commissioners are asking that we prohibit all hunting with artificial lights on the right-of-ways and there's no known opposition to this bill, but I stand for whatever questions you may have. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Horn? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair. I move for approval of favorable report. There's no PCS. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the appropriate time. Any other questions or concerns? Representative Luebke? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Chairman. I know we had all these bills two years ago where we were doing this or that for one county after another and I think Representative Jones, you were here with some other small items having to do with hunting, and my question is is there a way to get state-wide bills on this stuff? Why would anyone want to allow headlights to shoot coyotes? Do you know the answer to why we can't have a state-wide bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, you're recognized to answer the question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke, I don't know the answer and I don't know that there would be a problem with that, I'm just bringing the bill because my county commissioner's asked me to do it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, could I just ask staff for an opinion as to could we not have a state-wide bill on all of this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Staff, you are recognized to address Representative Luebke's concerns. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, you could do a state-wide bill on this. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion? Further debate? Representative Horn, you're recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move for a favorable report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You've heard the motion. Any further discussion or debate? All in favor say aye. Any opposed? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Bill passes, thank you Representative Johnson. I might inform the committee that House Bill 663 has been removed from today's calendar if it was on the agenda that you had. Our next bill is House Bill 584. Representative Brisson, you are recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I need a motion to have the PCS before the committee. Representative Horn makes a motion for the PCS to be before the committee. All in favor? Any opposed? Representative Brisson, you're recognized to explain the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. The PCS, all the PCS does for this bill is on line 12, it removes from the original bill "transporting hazardous materials." It just removes that wording. The bill is actually just exactly like it leads off, entitled to act to allow the governor to temporarily suspend routine weight inspections of trucks prior to severe weather events, and our commissioner of agriculture supports this strongly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Pittman? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Motion, at the proper time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further questions, further debate? Representative Tolson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is there a prior ?? what's your time frame? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's basically what's the bill's purpose. We have had a bill like this in the past and the DMV had a little problem because we had it specific times, but this is- farming is year round, so we're taking in crops and putting in crops, so this is yearly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. Following up on Representative Tolson, it seems to me there ought to be some language that requires the governor to act within two weeks? Ten days? I mean, you don't have a three-week storm. I'm just concerned, Representative Brisson, on page 2 whether we could amend that to say that the governor determines within three weeks or two weeks, because it's really open-ended. Right now, the governor could do it in-

Representative Brisson, you’re recognized to respond. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I’d like to ask, answer Representative Lucas’ question, why not give the Governor, I mean we never know when the adverse weather’s going to come. You shouldn’t have a waiting period or you shouldn’t have, and it’s working directly with Commissioner ?? on the recommendations of it, which is, these are two of the people that know when it needs to be. I mean and if you’re around it could happen any time so. This is the purpose of the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] May I, he asked me a question. May I answer his question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You may answer his question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This is the way I look at it, Representative Brisson. You have a situation in which the Governor’s very busy and all we’re asking is to ensure that there be a decision taken within as I’m saying three weeks, you can put in what you want. But the fact of the matter is we are suspending checking of the weight of the trucks. And you and I both know there wouldn’t be weight restrictions if the trucks didn’t do damage to the road if they were overweight. And I am completely in sympathy with you that under these circumstances, it can be waived. I don’t have a problem with that. But the idea that we have no deadline while these trucks are presumably doing damage to the road if they are overweight, I truly don’t understand this. I mean it’s your bill, but I would really encourage you or I’ll work with you to put an amendment up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brisson? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, and I’m going to ask David, commissioners to respond to it. But I think at the end of the day this bill actually allows the commissioner to go ahead and move forward with it, Mr. Luebke. But David. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. ??, you’re recognized to give an explanation to the concerns of Representative Luebke. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would just point out that when the Governor declares a state of emergency under the Emergency Management Act, there are no statutory timeframes built into that. It’s based on the discretion of the Governor and the needs of the state and I can assure you that in the situation like this, the highway patrol and motor carrier safety unit will be offering the other side of the story and they’ll let the Governor know when is a reasonable time to suspend it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Chairman. A comment, just to follow up on the previous discussion. I mean, we’re talking about here specifically temporarily suspending or vehicles hauling livestock, poultry or crops, ready to be harvested, that are at risk of damage to the processing facility, or point of further distribution. It’s very narrow. I don’t see that we need a deadline or anything. It’s very specific. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Is it proper for the Chair to make a comment? Or would I just carry the bill? [PAUSE] [LAUGHTER] ?? One of the important aspects of this legislation is not the issuance of the suspension, but the important language here is when the suspension ends. And the suspension ends, and this is very critical, just because the storm is gone does not mean that the threat to the loss is gone. And the suspension or the lifting of the suspension comes after as the language points out here, after the threat of damage. And those are two very different times. If it wasn’t for getting that language in the statute, there would be no reason for this bill because the Commissioner at any point can say to the Governor, “You need to suspend.” So we don’t need legislation for that. Representative Horn’s recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move for a favorable report on House Bill 584. Is there a serial referral? Favorable as to the Committee Substitute. Unfavorable to the original. Is there a referral? No referral. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’ve heard the motion

Any other discussion or comment? All in favor? Any opposed? Veto Carries. Meeting Adjourned.