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 | August 20, 2014 | Chamber | Session

Full MP3 Audio File

The house will come to order. Members do not need to take their seats. Ladies and gentlemen in ?? to a request from the democratic caucus we are going to be in recess. We will take up the order of business at 11:15. Representative Hager please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. For a announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman's recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I want to say the republicans will caucus in 1228 about 11:15. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, right now. [SPEAKER CHANGES] No, right now. Excuse me. I did that well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 11:15 in 1228 and we will be in recess until 11:15. We will take up the calender promptly at 11:15. The House stands in recess. The House come to order members please take your seats visitors please retire from the chamber. The sergeant arms will close the doors. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sergeant arms will allow a few more minutes I think we some members entering if they want to enter before we do the prayer and the pledge. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members please take your seats. Ladies and gentlemen of the House the Chair is going to offered by Representative Harry Warren. I'd like to have you keep Charlie Jeter in your thoughts. He's on his way to the hospital, we think that he's okay but he is now being taken to the hospital. I hope you will think about him in the prayer that's offered by Harry Warren. Members and visitors in the gallery please stand for the prayer and please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Dear Lord our Heavenly Father once again we gather here to do the work of the people. Once again we ask for your guidance. Help each one of us Lord to see beyond our individual ambitions. Help each of us focus on the needs of the people who entrust us to work on their behalf. Help us remember, Father, what they expect of us. Help us remain true to the simple values and core principals that we profess to believe in. Help us Father, most of all, to remember that we've been created in your image and as so we should strive to reflect you in all of our actions. Help us now Father as we behind what hopefully are our last hours of work here that our hearts and our ears might be open to receive your inspiration. We each make this request of your Father in our own individual ways as we thank you for your patience with us. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the republic for which it stands. One nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker the journal for Tuesday, August the 19th has been examined and found to be correct. I move that it be approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr moves that the journal for August 19th be approved as written. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The journal is approved as written. Petitions, memorials or papers addressed to the General Assembly or the House the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] State of North Carolina Pat McCrory governor Department of Gary H. Pendleton 2013-2014 by the governor of the state of North Carolina a proclamation. Whereas the honorable James Spencer Fulcham elected Representative from District 49 for the 2013-2014 General Assembly died on July 19th 2014 and whereas the provisions of general statutes 163-11 require that the vacancy created by the death of the honorable James Spencer Fulcham be filled by appointment of the person recommended by the 49th state House district executive committee of the Republican party and whereas the executive committee of the 49th state House district Republican party has notified me of it's recommendation of Gary H. Pendleton of Wake County North Carolina to fill the unexpired term. I do by these presence appoint Gary H. Pendleton as a member of the North Carolina House of Representatives 2013-2014 General Assembly. In witness whereof I have here unto sign my name and fix the great seal of the state of North Carolina in the capital of the city of Raleigh on this 18th day of August in the year of our Lord 2014 and of the independence of the United States of America the 239th Pat McCrory governor attest Elaine F. Marshall Secretary of State. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Ladies and Gentlemen, Representative Elect Pendleton will take the oath of office at a later date. Reports of standing

Committees and permanent sub-committees, Representative Moore is recognized to send forth the committee report, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative T. Moore, Chair, Rules, count [??] and operation of the house committee report, senate bill 729, [??] management act of 2014, recommend that the house do adopt the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Calendar without objection for today's calender? representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to make his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker I move that senate bill three which was the Jay Mack [SP] modification bill, at least the version we would eventually be considering, be recalled from the clerks office and placed on the calender for immediate consideration. And I would be asked to, be recognized to debate the motion please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, this is senate bill three, I've spoken to the democratic caucus today, I've spoken to the republican caucus. I think most all members are in the loop on what this is about but I in abundance of caution want to make sure that everyone knows what this is. Many of you may recall we received senate bill three several weeks ago from the senate and it was the clean Jay Mack [SP] bill. The Jay Mack that was one of the provisions in 1224 yesterday but it's also a provision that's been approved by a wide margin in another bill that we did. What that does, that is designed to save the jobs for the evergreen project up in Western North Carolina. That's the power plant that has been required by the EPA to make all these upgrades and so forth, and there are real concerns that the plant may leave the state, if it does so it's a - leave a paper facility and it's been there for many many years. This is the first of a number of procedural motions if the house would indulge and would grant it, that would allow this bill to be back before the body to be acted upon. By going this route we would be essentially be going back to the second version that came to us, version two, the version that came to us form the senate allowing us to adopt that version and then simply having it ratified by both bodies, go to the governor, would not require any further action on the part of the senate. We have concurred with the senate and they understand that we are doing this today also. It is vitally important I think as the members form Western North Carolina spoke on it yesterday to that region of the state, but we have a series of procedural votes we need to go through to simply have the bill before us. I would ask the body to vote with us on the procedural votes and then at some point today we will taker a recess, the rules committee will review the bill again to give it an appropriate view in committee and then it would be added to the calendar for this afternoon later in the day. Mr. Speaker I'll be glad to answer any questions if there are any, otherwise I would ask the body for support in this motion. And there will be other motions to follow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate on the motion? If not the question before the house is the motion sent forth by representative Moore for the house committee substitute of senate bill three. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk allot machine record the vote, 97 having voted in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For an additional motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker Ii move that the house suspend the rules to allow a motion to reconsider the vote on the third reading of senate bill three with that vote having occurred more than one legislative day prior to today. Again that Mr. Speaker if I may be allowed to debate the motion briefly? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Just briefly. Representative Cunningham, does the lady wish to be recorded on the prior vote? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Sorry Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Recorded as yes? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has been recorded as yes. The gentleman has the floor to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Again this is just another one of the procedural votes, I appreciate your affirmative vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the motion to suspend the rules for consideration of the house committee substitute, reconsideration of the house committee substitute for senate bill three. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk allot machine record the vote. 98 having voted affirmative, one in the negative...

The motion passes. Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Additional motion pertaining to this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker having voted on the prevailing side I move that the house reconsider the vote on third reading of senate bill three. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not the question before the house is the motion to reconsider the vote on the house committee substitute for senate bill three. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk allot machine record the vote. 98 having voted int eh affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. Representative Moore please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to state his motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I move that the house committee substitute for senate bill three be referred to the committee rules, calendar and operations of the house. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman motions is now properly before us. Further discussion, further debate?If not the question before the house is the motion to re-refer the house committee substitute of senate bill three to the committee on rules, calender and operations of the house. All in favor vote aye, all opposed vote no, the clerk will open the vote. The clerk allot machine will record the vote. 98 having voted in the affirmative, one in the negative, the motion passes. House bill 729 the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To the president of the senate, the speaker, house representatives, this conference report to solve the difference between the senate and the house representatives on senate bill 729 bill to be entitled the company has recommended that the senate and the house representatives adopt this report, conference [??] for the senate, senate Apodaca Chair, senators Berger and Wade confluence [??] of the house, representative McGrady Chair, representative Hager and Moffett. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair recognizes that a darned important member for this bill is out of the chamber, we'll be at ease until we find Representative, oh, there representative McGrady is. Representative McGrady the gentleman is recognized for a motion and then to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The motion I believe I guess is to accept the conference report. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To adopt the conference report. The motion is properly before us, the gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I was in support of the conference report, I chaired the conference committee and I'm proud to say that all the conferees on the conference committee for the house have come together to sport the bill. This was a bipartisan committee, unfortunately representative Samuelson and Representative Glazier are not here today but both of them have communicated their support for the bill and both were critical actually in getting us to where we are. I'm intending only to go over five points with respect to this bill. There are a lot of different issues in the bill and differences between the senate and the house, but there were only really five that had some prominence. Note I didn't say they were important, I just said they were had some prominence 'cause I think some of them are actually not that important in terms of passage of the bill. I would want to note though what we're doing here again. This is the first in the nation effort to address the coal ash management, coal ash issue. No other state has undertaken what we're undertaking today. We had no model to use to come up with the bill and that's why it took the time it did. It's a very long bill and given that the amount of time it's taken us to get where we are with respect to coal ash, some of these coal ash ponds are decades old and some of them nearly a century old. Frankly it shouldn't be unexpected that it took us several months to get to the point where we have agreement as between the house and the senate. What I really like about the bill is it recognizes that there's no one size fits all option here. We've got different coal ash ponds in different parts of the state and they each need to be dealt with in different ways. A coal ash pond...

In the mountains is very different than a coal ash pond sitting at, near sea level down in a bunch of water. And they really need to be looked at separately. Moreover, we couldn't come up with one solution here. If we wanted to dig them all up and put them in landfills, we do not have enough landfill space to do that. This requires a multifaceted approach. There are gonna be some of these coal ash ponds that are dug up and put in landfills. And that's what's gonna happen. There are gonna be some of these coal ash ponds that the ash is used for beneficial purposes, for structural fill. I suspect there are gonna be some of these coal ash ponds where the coal ash, when dried, will actually be burned again so that the coal ash has the chemical composition that could be used in cement. And I'm just saying this because there are various things that need to be done, and I think the bill is really important because it recognizes a one size does not fit all. The bill is gonna lead to specific plans on each one of these coal ponds, coal ash ponds. And once the plans are in place, as a recommended initially by Duke, then considered by DENR and ultimately approved by an independent third party, the coal ash management commission, will have plans, will have a prioritization, which ones need to be cleaned up first, and then this will lead to the clean up of the coal ash ponds. I would tell you, I think we're doing it in a cost efficient way. And I, most importantly as I suggested, I think there are some new technologies that we need to provide for because we do not have enough coal ash, enough landfills to put all the coal ash that we've got in place. Bottom line for me, and people know my background, at the end of the day if a pond is polluting one's neighbor's land, that pond is gonna have to be cleaned up. We can talk about compliance boundaries and all sort of technical issues, but that's the simple truth here. If you've got a pond that is polluting your neighbor's land, those ponds are gonna have to be cleaned up. And I wouldn't be supportive of this bill unless I knew this to be true. So let me get to the five, and only five issues that I intend to touch on unless others have questions. First, the moratorium. The Senate bill initially had a moratorium that basically said that Duke Energy could not recoup its costs through rates until January of next year. Meaning, it can't begin a rate case. It doesn't mean that it gets decided right then. That's when they can move forward. The House bill had a much later date. In the conference bill we have gone with the House version. And this is one of those issues that has some recognition but I frankly don't view it as a very important issue. And the reason it's not important is because we can come back next year and deal with the cost issue. We made a decision not to deal with the cost issue in this bill. If we had put the cost provision in this bill, we would not be cleaning up these things because we'd still be talking about the cost issue. These costs are not gonna be incurred until Duke starts cleaning them up. And so, it is premature. And legal ?? this is not ripe yet for us to take this issue. And if we took it, this issue, right now, we wouldn't be moving forward with a bill that requires Duke to do what this bill requires it to do. Secondly, the variance. The House has a provision that allows the coal ash management commission, upon recommendation to Duke, to move some of these dates. Now, Duke will tell you that these dates are wildly aggressive, and they don't know if they can meet them all. Well, that may be true. I don't wanna be in a position where they meet most of them, and one pond is out there, and we don't have a way to allow them, because every one of these ponds are very different, to comply with the law. If, if they make the appropriate showing, they can get a variance. And what is in this bill that's different than the one we passed is I thought it was appropriate that some complained that the variance, the variance provisions were sort of wide open. They can be used over and over again, over some period of time. Which could mean, in theory, that something didn't get cleaned up.

And so the variance provision has been tightened, And I would direct you to page 26, lines 35 through 40, where the tightening has occurred. So in this position, the senate compromised with us in putting the variance provision in and we compromised with the Senate in terms of making sure that it couldn’t be liberally used. The next issue is the location of the new Coal Ash Management Commission. The House bill housed the Coal Ash Management Commission at Deener. The senate bill housed the Coal Ash Management Commission at the Division of Emergency Management of the Department of Public Safety. The conference bill goes with the senate version. And there’s a good reason for that. I think we need to recognize that there is a federal criminal investigation going on right now. And the Senate’s argument was that we need to put this thing somewhere right now, somewhere other than at Deener. Deener does not have the credibility right now, perhaps. And so let’s set it up in a neutral site. If we set it up right, and it starts running. This is going to be here for a good number of years. We can always move it over to Deener when a lot of this other stuff gone on. We acceded to the Senate position with respect to the location of the new Coal Ash commission. The next two issues are the ones that probably have gotten the most public discussion in defining what the low priority site is is the issue that, in fact, was what caused the break down in all of our negotiations with the Senate. If you look at pages 20 and 21, particularly on page 21 lines 4 through 10. That language is where the disagreement was. If you remember back when we debated this bill on the floor, many of you put forward amendments seeking to add this site, or that site, to the list of high priority sites. And the reason people were doing that is because they didn’t want this other Coal Ash pond to be capped in place. Well, we have gotten to that issue. The ? has heard you. And we believe that, in fact, most of the Coal Ash ponds that are out there are not going to be capped in place. But to assure you of that, we wanted to reflect in the low priority criteria that fact. And the key issue here is, as a general matter, a Coal Ash pond that is sitting in water and water capable of running through it. No matter what comes in at the top. You can put a cap on it. Sitting in water, is not going to be capped in place, unless there is a technology that precludes that pollution from moving on to your neighbor’s property. And again, I could get more detailed here talking about compliance boundaries and what not. But the fact is that were trying to clearly say to everyone that there are Coal Ash ponds that are not appropriate to be capped in place. And most of those frankly are the ones that you tried to move forward and most of them are along the coast because the water table is pretty close to what these ponds are at. And we were insistent and frankly we brought down the General Assembly over our insistence on this provision. For me, this is the single most reason to support the bill. It strengthens the bill in ways that we wanted to get there. And its based on the science. It’s based on Deener telling us that they do not believe that a pond that is sitting in the water table ought to be capped in place as a general matter. And finally the last issue is the compliance boundary. The compliancy boundary issue we debated at great length. I wish Representative Glazier was here, he can better explain it than me actually. But the conference bill is the House position. So we’ve been through this before. We have takes the House position. Basically it does reverse a Superior Court….

Decision related to the compliance boundary, which in my opinion, and the opinion of many Republican lawyers, was wrongly decided. That gets me back to why I wanted a Democratic lawyer on my conference committee. And I charged Representative Glazier to look at this thing, and he and I worked on it, and we tried to see if there was some other fix here, and in the end we didn't, he was of the view, as was I previously, that the superior court decision was wrongly decided and the appropriate thing for us to do, since we are the ones that determine what the law is, was to fix it, and fix it now. This is the only piece of the coal ash bill that has application beyond coal ash. It would relate to municipal landfills. It would relate to municipalities that spray their wastewater on land. You have other compliance boundaries, so this is a, actually a bigger issue than just the coal ash. But we have voted on this, and this position is a House position, and despite what you might have heard in the press, being criticized for our position on the compliance boundary, I will tell you the Senate insisted upon the House position on the compliance boundary. This was not something we negotiated at great length with the Senate. This is where they were. So that is the explanation of the five big points. There's a lot more there. I, mister Speaker, I didn't ask, but I assume I can have staff on the floor with me, since they're already here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It's been sort of implied for about 25 minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's what I figured. And so, if there are other questions I'll try to respond to them, but I'm gonna, I'll stop right there. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That, ladies and gentlemen, because of a rules committee meeting and other matters and providing you all with some time for lunch, we are gonna carry this debate on to noon. If we have sufficient time, we will take a vote. Otherwise, we will continue to debate when we reconvene at 2pm. Representative Alexander, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative McGrady would yield for a question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] There's much in your presentation that I find to be very positive. One thing however troubles me, and that's, my constituents have been concerned that in the fall out of all of this that they're going to end up as rate pairs, having to, as they say, tote the note. And in an earlier iteration of this, there was a moratorium that would have extended to sometime in the next legislative session in order to give this general assembly the opportunity to weigh in on that issue. That moratorium seems to have kind of vanished in the bill that's in front of us until I think January. And so I was wondering, since it's somewhat of a long bill and I might have missed something, what assurances can you give me for my constituents that won't be left whole in the bag. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The, responding to your question, the moratorium language is on page three. The change is simply between the dates. You are right in characterizing the moratorium as being in place until January 15th of next year. We come into session shortly thereafter. If Duke applies for a rate increase based on its cost for cleaning up coal ash ponds, any legislator here would be able to introduce legislation like the following week. And as we all need to recognize, I assume these rate pieces go on for some period of time. I am, I am, I would bet my house on the fact that if we want to take up the cost issue, we can do it next time. As to the substance of what you were asking, I would ask, I would suggest that this isn't in one of those issues that is neither one way, all one way or the other way. In instances where Duke has been negligent in its handling of coal ash, my view would be that those costs have to be borne by Duke and the shareholders. But I feel like we also need to recognize that we're, right as we're standing here, I'm standing here now,

We are generating electricity using coal and the cost of the coal that we're currently using in the disposal of that ash is not, in my opinion, appropriately the shareholders of Duke. That's the rate payers. That's the cost of doing electricity so I think this is going to be a situation that the General Assembly may want to weigh into. We wouldn't have a bill if we weigh into it now, there's just no way. The issue is way too complicated and it's not read right. They haven't incurred the cost necessary to put forward a rate case and therefore we, when we come back next year, and I may even work on a bill related to the rate, we can take that up and we'll have plenty of time to do it. I can't assure you what we'll do or what the public utility commission will do, but my personal view is that there's a sweet spot somewhere in the middle here. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Harrison please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I did want to ?? the House I did want to give a lot of credit to our colleagues Representative Hager and ?? and Callan and Millis and you Mr. Speaker and especially Representative McGrady for the leadership on this issue as our Representative McGrady our state has dealt with this issue including the state of Tennessee that experienced a billion gallon spill in December of 2008 so I think this is a good step for our state to be taking and I heard in rurals that discussion about the lack of federal regulations. I think the feds have been trying to work on this but have been prevented by pressure by Congress but we might have a federal rule but in the meantime I think it's important for North Carolina to act on coal ash. It's a very toxic substance. It's got all kinds of carcinogens and ?? in it and we have known cancer clusters around some of these coal ash ponds so this is a real public health problem so I'm glad we're addressing it. I just wish this were a stronger bill. I have a couple of problems with it and I'll be brief. One relates to the cost and the other relates to the compliance boundary language. I think just as this body did in the clean smoke stacks debate I think we could make the policy determination that this cost is not going to be born by the rate payers of North Carolina. We heard in the environmental review commission that the cost to clean up could be as much as 10 billion dollars and that would translate to 20 to 30 dollars a month on the power bills of our constituents. I heard from my constituents when I was knocking on doors in May that this was just unacceptable to them. We know that the public is very anxious about the cost of this not being born by the rate payers and I appreciate Representative McGrady's point about Duke being negligent. I think a lot of people feel like the fact that these ponds have been leaking toxins and contaminants into our waterways for decades is some display of negligence but it's going to be a future determination. The other problem I have with this bill relates to the undermining of Judge Ridgeway's decision. Judge Ridgeway ruled that existing law required clean up of the source of the contamination in these coal ash ponds and what this bill is going to do is undermine that decision. I think that that was a very important ruling that protected the public health as citizens of North Carolina so for those two reasons because the cost issue and because of the reversing the Judge Ridgeway decision I'm going to encourage you to vote no on the motion. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Grier Martin please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the motion. Representative Martin I will add that we're going to end at noon so you can continue it over if we have to come back at 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I read it Mr. Speaker that I may be the only thing standing between the body and lunch. Thank you Mr. Speaker. Members first of all I think it's clear that the bill before you represents a great deal of really good work by folks on both sides of the aisle particularly the gentleman from Henderson. I think we've got to this point really for two reason. One is that we have a horror story. We've seen what happens now to our citizens, to the people of North Carolina, when we have some of those spills. But you can take a horror story and it'll just lie there if you don't have folks like the gentleman from Henderson and many other who have been apart of this to get it to this point. In the end though in spite of all the good work and the many good provisions in this, it's the cost issue that is the sticking point for me. That now having seen the horrors of a coal ash spill in North Carolina I can't now vote for a bill that I have to go back and tell my North Carolinians leaves them still at risk for a coal ash spill and also may stick them for the bill of the clean up so for those reasons and with great respect to the gentleman from Henderson and all the folks who have worked for this, I will be voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Insko please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady is recognized to debate the motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker

members, I agree that this is a much better bill and I applaud the work that's been done on it. There's a provision here that, for me, is not acceptable and I also agree with Representative Grady that the capping in place of provision has been improved greatly. But all of these sites, maybe with the exception one or two, all of these sites are currently leaking contaminants and capping is not going to stop that leaking. My parents have a piece of property in California that is a superfund site, it's contaminated with hexavalent chromium. It may be in the cleanup process for decades. So when something like this happens it can affect multiple generations and be a danger, a health danger, and I just think that this is too weak and that we could do better. So I'll be voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To ask a question of McGrady. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative McGrady, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I appreciate your response to questions so far and your explanation of the five key points. On one of them, the defining the low-priority sites, I, is, whenever you make the determination that if the coal ash is in water and there will not be any pollution going beyond the site to some other property owner and so forth that you could indeed cap that in place. I understand that to be the case? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] But if there was- [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to a follow-up? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Excuse me. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, excuse me, Mr. Speaker. If there was pollution going to a neighboring site and issues then this bill says that that coal ash will be removed and not capped in place. [SPEAKER CHANGES] This bill says that if the pollution crosses the compliance boundary, which may or may not be the border of the property, that the, in this case Duke Energy, is going to have to stop any pollution continuing to cross the compliance boundary. This comes back, Representative Queen, to, it's going to really have two choices. If it is, if Duke's coal ash residuals are leaking into, past the compliance boundary, one of the options it's going to have is to be dig it all up and move it somewhere else or dig it all up and put down a liner and put it all back. The other possibility, though, is a different type of cap in place. You could, in theory, put pressure outside the compliance boundary that pushes that polluted, dirty water back to the pond in which it came. In theory, there could be something that you put in the pond that would attract those pollutants, those toxic metals, or whatever. And so I'm guarded in response to you because it's a very important question but the answer is complex. My guess is that, more often than not, the solution is going to be dig up the coal ash pond and move it somewhere else. [SPEAKER CHANGES] A follow-up question? [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, if the commission determines that this technology/solution might be indeed viable, who determines the, is it a sustainable solution and will it be monitored so that indeed it, I guess just monitored so indeed the solution that was intended is sustainable, is that part of this? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Queen, I would direct you to page 21, lines 4-10 and that is the sum and substance of the answer to your question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Can you, is that yes or no? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And the responsibility lies ultimately

With the coal ash management commission. But the language that was critical to me was that if they're gonna use something other than digging it up and putting down a liner and moving it somewhere, they had to demonstrate, they had to design, they had to demonstrate that whatever they were doing, was actually going to prevent that pollution from moving. And again, that was, you have hit the, the heart of the dispute that brought this bill nearly to an end several weeks ago. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members we'll be going into recess until 2 P.M. Representative Queen, you will have ten minutes for your first opportunity to debate the motion, your remaining ten minutes of the fifteen minutes allocated to you. The House stands in recess until 2 P.M. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Notices and announcements. There's a rules meeting at 1:30 in room 1228. Rules meeting at 1:30 in room 1228.


[no speaker]

I'll see you, buddy. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Take care.


[No voices were audible in this segment]


[no speaking]


Background Audio

[No Speaker]


[Speaker changes.]INAUDIBLE at 0:17 thru 4:44 fon sound??? SORRY...hear both women and men yet not clear enough to type?!@#?

[Speaker changes.] ...??????? we gonna be goin' back to session...??????? you're a good man, thank you. [Speaker changes.] 0:44 woman's voice??? at 1:59 heard "you're on top of it"....male voice..."appreciate it".... woman's voice in background, laughter... the rest from 2:56...inaudible for transcription! WOW...this is the third one I've had like this...I can hear voices yet cannot clearly hear anything to transcribe? Feels like I'm in some kinda' TWILIGHT ZONE!?@# so sorry!

Background Audio


[no audio]

Background Audio



OOOOOPSEEEE....another INAUDIBLE?!@# sounds like "milling crowd".... listened 0:00 til 5:00 hear voices and laughter yet not clear enough to transcribe! so sorry!!

MMMM.....sorry....only got "crowd chatter" for the entire five minutes! Nothin' I could transcribe?!@#?


[Background Audio] May I have your attention please. Visitors will please retire from the chamber as the House prepares to resume its session following recess. [Background Audio]

The House will come to order. Reports of standing committees and permanent subcommittees. Representative Board Chair for rules calender and operations of the House. Senate bill 3 2014 budget modification pay raise and other changes unfavorable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Unfavorable calender. Please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This guys if it looks familiar to you many of you know that this has been in front of us I think the 4th time Representative Presnell has worked tirelessly over the last 2 months to get this in front of us never giving up and if you don't want to vote for any other reason vote for her because sheer endurance of Representative Presnell and what she's put in front of us. Every time this bill's come in front of each one of you I think we've voted for it overwhelmingly. So let's reward Representative Presnell's endurance. Let's reward the jobs in Western North Carolina and let's vote yes on this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of the Senate committee substitute to Senate bill 3 on it's second reading. All in favor vote aye all opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk ?? machine record the vote. 88 having voted affirmative, 9 in the negative. The Senate committee substitute to Senate bill 3 has passed it's second reading and without objection. It will be read a 3rd time. Further discussion further debate? If not the question before the House is the passage of the Senate committee substitute to Senate bill 3 on it's third reading. All in favor say aye. All opposed no. The ayes have it. The Senate committee substitute for Senate bill 3 has passed it's third reading. The bill will be enrolled and sent to the governor by a special message. Ladies and gentlemen this concludes the calender for the day and this session with the exception of an adjournment resolution. We will take up the adjournment resolution then we will have a formal motion to adjourn. The Senate will ratify this bill. It's already passed the Senate and it was adopted without change. It will be ratified this evening as will the coal ash report and the House also expects to ratify a bill that will not have to come back to this chamber that includes the unemployment insurance language that was in 1224 and that will be sent to the governor this evening. With that we are done for the session. I appreciate the hard work of all the members of the General Assembly and wish you all very well. With respect to wishing you well I wish you all well. With respect to the elections I don't necessarily wish you all luck. Representative Wray please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquire to the chair. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may state his inquiry. [SPEAKER CHANGES] At the end of session it's like silly season in NASCAR. You hear so many different things. Medicaid is a big issue and I reckon my question to you: do you foresee us coming back dealing with medicaid and/or possibly incentives later down the road? I know things go around the chamber and go around. Do you foresee that? I know

[Speaker changes.]...the governor but I mean you are the Speaker of the House, do you anticipate...foresee...anything to that effect? [Speaker changes.] Representative Ray????????, just speaking candidly, I do think that there were some matters in 12-24 that the governor and the Secretary of Commerce have expressed grave concern about the potential impact on some immediate opportunities. I am not the Governor nor would I pretend to know what he is thinking but it would be logical given the...some of the imminent situation related to the negative...potentially negative outcomes of that bill failing yesterday that it is within his power to call us back to a special session. I'm not certain that he would do that. There will not be any call...obviously constitutionally with the appropriate number of members could call ourselves back but the only adjournment resolution that the House was willing to accept was one that does not have a provision for a special session. I find it highly unlikely that we would call ourselves back for that purpose. I find it highly likely that in the interim...that there will be a lot of progress made on trying to address Medicaid reform but that would most likely be a matter that would be taken up under another Speaker and another session. [Speaker changes.] Point of personal privilege? [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker changes.] Well, ladies and gentlemen...for the freshman especially...this is a...we're goin' home folks. We had a member that was on our side of the aisle, Larry ???????????, that he always wore his purple suit at the end of session and so...some of our members here have purple on so ladies and gentlemen, I hope you have a good safe trip home and, in honor of my friend and one of my passed colleagues, Larry ??????????????, purple's for him. Thank you. (Applause.) [Speaker changes.] Ladies and gentlemen, I'm also pleased to report that our friend and colleague, Representative Jeter, is doing well tho' I think he had been ill overnight and was seriously dehydrated and we expect him to be released from the hospital today and get him back up to the energetic level we all like to know and love him by. Representative McGrady, please state your purpose. [Speaker changes.] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker changes.] The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker changes.] Mister Speaker, I just rise to thank publicly a large number of people who worked on a very difficult bill. Representatives Hager, Samuelson and I started with this bill, joined by Representative Catlin and then a host of others...Representative Millis...and it's been a long road, and, as I indicated earlier, it's been one where I've tried to be very collaborative and so Representative Harrison, Representative Glazier among others have made some significant contributions. It was funny at one point, the Senate was upset because there was language in one of the Democrats' bills that looked peculiarly like my language and the reason that was was it was my language. I was working to try to build...let's say a car....all on the same platform and so I worked collaboratively with Senator Apodaca and the Senate bill was more language of mine than they would probably be willing to concede and we ended up in a good place. I wanna particularly thank you, Mister Speaker. Despite what a range of television ads have said, you, throughout this whole process have had my back, and, at any one point, you could've cut a deal that was something other than where I wanted to get us. As recently as Sunday night while I was getting on a plane to come back here, thinking I wasn't going to have a bill but we have a bill. We have a bill because of some really good work by a number of my colleagues and the support of my leadership. I just wanna thank you for that. [Speaker changes.] Notices and announcements? We are gonna take up the adjournment resolution...I'm just trying to take care of any other remaining business before hand. Representative Cunningham, please state your purpose [Speaker changes.] Point of personal privilege. [Speaker changes.] The lady is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [Speaker changes.] Thank you, Mister Speaker. I wanted you all to know

Left here that this session has truly been a challenge. But I also want to remind you that the Suicide Resolution passed in this House unanimously. And I really appreciate the bipartisan support on that issue. It went to the Senate, and it sat in the Senate Health Committee, because I followed it. But do believe, when we return here, you will see another Suicide Resolution that will be presented in this House in the next session. Thank you all. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Pittman, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, I want to say in front of everybody that, although that you and I have disagreed on some things long away, I do admire your grasp of ?? things and your leadership ability. And I do believe you have done some very good things here. And I believe if you get to go to Washington, you'll do some good things there. And may God bless you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Brandon, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Moment of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Since we're being bipartisan, I do want to make sure that I would like to stand up and say how much it has been an honor to serve under you, Mr. Speaker. We have made a lot of music together. We have made people together. But I wanted to let you know that I've had many bosses and I've had many people that I have been under their leadership. And it has been a tremendous honor to have worked under you. You have been tremendously fair and have never lied to me. Everything that you said that you were going to do, you did. I never, ever had to worry about you saying something to me and I had to worry about it not being true later. That is what a true leader is. We don't always agree politically, but I think you're a tremendous servant, and the state of North Carolina is better because of your service. And I appreciate you for it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moore will take up the Resolution, and we will do the adjournment. And thank you for those comments, Representatives Pittman and Brandon. House Joint Resolution 1276 The Clerk will read it. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Senate Committee ?? House Joint Resolution 1276. A joint resolution ?? for the adjournment sine die of the 2013 regular session of the General Assembly. The House resolves, the Senate concurring. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Representative Moore is recognized to debate the Resolution. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. Mr. Speaker, members, a lot of folks have been waiting for a long time for this one. This is the Adjournment Resolution to send us home. This would be the Sine Die Resolution, which would mean the session is over for this year. A lot of times we have a ceremony, if the Senate is in session and we're in session, where we would open both of these doors, the bell would get rung, and Ms. Weeks would drop a handkerchief. We thought we were out of handkerchiefs because we've been here so long people have been crying, and they were all dirty and they couldn't find any handkerchiefs. That one came from Ray Starling, by the way. But we won't get to do the handkerchief drop, because the Senate is not going to be in session until 7:00 tonight. But the effect of this Resolution would be, once we adopt it we would then thereafter come back in for the normal Adjournment motion that I would make at the end of session. But it would be the Adjournment Sine Die and we would vote on that. That is the plan. If I could just, sort of debating the Resolution but sort of a moment of personal privilege if I might, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES]The gentleman is recognized for a point of personal privilege. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you. Mr. Speaker, I want to echo some of the comments. I want to thank you, first off, for the opportunity to serve as Rules Chair. We try not to mess up to much. Every now and then some mistakes happen, but the Clerk tries to help sometimes. I want to thank you for the leadership you've provided this House these four years. I'm going to miss you. I know a lot of other folks are. I certainly hope to see you on a larger stage doing bigger and better things here in the coming months. But I wanted to take the time to thank you, to thank Denise, to thank the Clerk staff, to thank your staff for making this a very productive, maybe a little long, but a very productive session. Thank you the honor of serving with you. And I hope the members will join me in expressing our gratitude for your service and also for the Clerk. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES]Thank you.

Representative Speciale, please state your purpose. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Floyd would answer a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, does the gentleman yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Reluctantly, Mr. Speaker, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Floyd, are we hitting the red or the green button on this one? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If it's to leave it with Shelby it will be green. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the House is the motion to concur in Senate Committee Substitute for House Joint Resolution 1276. All in favor vote aye. All opposed vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will let the machine record the vote, 95 having voted affirmative and none in the negative. The resolution passes. Now, I know you think we're all done but we actually have to adjourn. That will be ratified tonight. So the remaining matter of business is one where, hopefully, we can convince Representative Blust to vote with us. Representative Moore is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the House of Representatives, meeting in regular session of the 2013 General Assembly has concluded the business for which it was convened and I move that the House adjourn sine die subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, messages from the Senate, and pursuant to House Joint Resolution 1276. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Moore moves, seconded by Representative Stam, that the House of Representatives, meeting in the regular session of the 2013 General Assembly adjourn sine die subject to ratification of bills and resolutions, receipt of messages from the Senate, and pursuant House Joint resolution 1276. Those in favor say aye. All opposed say no. The aye's have it, the House stands adjourned. Ladies and gentlemen, the motion carries. The message will be sent to the Senate that we adjourn sine die.