If fans as if hands and salmon as high as an assessed at an abandonment of national day of the endowment of the recommendation of the nation maintenance of pagers , action in the men's and women's mitigation and then some fun and games and make a new and different eight years of ignition and from remote chime in the arm of the sentiment and(SPEAKER CHANGES) if I am name and spinach women from an embankment and Ron Robinson him in the movement of them and that the movement members of the victim and women Jim Good enough economic conditions of the Andean region of the eye movement and unconditionally to give them a major event and the AA indication that he did detective in the year he agreed to adopt and 8:00 PM way we have got from our own way previously get the presentation of the im getting into two of the way we have some ongoing mom and now offers. And I think it could be wrong were wrong to try and completed a review partially wrong and how we appreciate your. Ago in an average production bank five billion on VO Aurora Village acquires you sort of an overview and we've already been working on the detail of the entire value will conduct a ruling and looking at. Roughly the department of the litigation when you make, from a worksheet feigning an understandable of the committee of the midtown any rioting E. Everett and their integration of others who are involved and I have a machine one of the family and our review a presentation came from the mid function via EO including vote-workers are taking over(SPEAKER CHANGES) view the highway system from the road building profit operation and maintenance memento, aspects of the own apartment from which it can give presentations partition of the DNA com. It didn't import about 10,000 people we have permissions from: one day she gets back to maintain a highly aware and want. Get in line when an airplane pilots to get on the web educate and taking over the governor's cabinet and oversee the lactation retention to eight from Washington and Oregon national recognition, universal (SPEAKER CHANGES) in the country but bomb that are others who share our breath people with one major route we have a historic preservation vote requirement for repairs or property to mention the word of warning properly make internally or an arm responsible in our work on our mistake infrastructure and so on, it will require some money than the Ben Bennett Bennett Bennett will be no additional charge for the benefit Bennett Bennett Ben Bennett deny that I'm modifying leaders of plan would bring. Acted alone if I'm going to have police found dead were to have more than 5:00 to midnight(SPEAKER CHANGES) 1 bit of war Marge machine about traffic violation of the allocations within a week and contrary to those found referee five new general assembly of 19 members are appointed by governor, allocated one would have been........
And so you've heard about the 14 highway divisions, but then there are five at-large areas of focus that are represented to make up the total of 19. At least three members of the board must be registered in a different political party than the governor. No more than two may be in the same highway division, so that we don't get a concentration, or an over-concentration in any one division. And the governor submits proposed appointees for review for a 30-day period or a minimum of a 30-day period before their appointment. The highway system, as you've heard many, many times--80,000 miles is the way I shorthand it--obviously for maybe my ego's purpose. But the interstate makes up 1,300 miles of that. Primary routes, 5,500 miles. North Carolina routes, 8,000. And the secondary system, the roads that at least largely would be under county administration in a lot of states, 60,000 miles of that system. And then along the system, again as you've heard, 18,000 bridges, culverts, and pipes. It's about 13,000 bridges, isn't it? I'm looking out for 13--is that the right number? Thirteen thousand bridges? What I'm going to be talking about is for the most part related to the two portions of this slide that you've seen in the past, although there will be obviously some parts of the bottom two that we also touch on. So project development--and this is a term of art that I suppose you need to pause to think about a little bit--purpose and need of a project. So you have to identify the purpose and need before you go to build the project, and that is used to analyze the possible alternatives to that project. And always on the table is the no-build alternative, but as we look at various projects that may be competing for the construction funding, we have to be aware of the purpose and need. And let's just say, thinking about an improvement of a route through our community versus a loop, they could both be for the same purpose and need of moving traffic from one side of the town to the other; there may be an additional purpose that is served by the loop road or by the one through the town that couldn't be served by the other kind of facility, so again, identifying purpose and need is an important step, and comes back later in the process. Route alternatives are evaluated to try to minimize the impact. The selection of a preferred alternative is a step, and then the completion of the environmental planning documents, which are at the state level or what's called NEPA, national level. And then determining the construction limits. And this is a step that results in being able to understand exactly what property is going to be needed, what the right-of-way limits will have to be, is to determine what you need to do on the construction. Using these current systems, we have got extraordinarily long reconstruction plans for the purpose of work that we're doing ?? evaluating work ?? the national funding through which things are funded using federal money ?? we think there will be some benefit from that. ?? SPEAKER CHANGES The House will come to order. Member are asked to take their seats. Visitors are asked to retire from the Chamber. The Sergeant-at-Arms will close the doors. Members and guests are asked to silence all electronic devices. Today's prayer will be offered by Representative Jeter. Members and all visitors in the gallery are asked to stand during the prayer, and also to remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. Representative Jeter. SPEAKER CHANGES Let us pray. Reading from the holy Bible, second Timothy, chapter four, verse five through eight: But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry. For I am now ready to be offered and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up upon me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing. Lord, this Scripture was read as part of my mother's funeral service. I want to thank you for her 73 years with us.
and today on what would have been her seventy fourth birthday, my mother would have been quick to remind me and and all of us and as this scripture states we work as evangelists in this building. That our actions matter and that one day we will have to answer for the decisions we make. To you to the people of North Carolina to our friends and family and to ourselves. Lord I pray that you give us the wisdom and guidance to make sure the decisions we make will remain honorable and true at all times. In your name I pray. Amen. [SPEAKER CHANGE] 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 CHANGE] The gentleman from Harnett representative Lewis is recognized for a motion. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker the journal for March third has been examined and found to be correct. I move this stand approved as written. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Lewis moves that the journal for March third be approved as written. Those in favor will say aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Aye. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Those opposed will say no. The aye's have it an the journal is approved as written. Members our nurse of the day is Kathy Ray from Angier North Carolina. Miss Ray we're glad to have you hear if you'd please stand we'd like to welcome you. [applause] Representative's Blust and Jordan chairman of the committee on judiciary two are recognized to send forth a committee report consisting of a series of bills the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative's Blust and Jordan house bill thirty eight judicial efficiency consecutive administration of justice phasable and be referred to appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The bill is referred to the committee of appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill thirty one zero point zero zero alcohol restrictions or DWI favorable committee substitute unfavorable regional bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Committee substitute placed on calender. Original bill unfavorable calender. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill thirty two ?? habitual DWI favorable committee substitute unfavorable original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Committee substitute for house bill thirty two calender original bills unfavorable calender. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill fifty nine clarify report of misablity favorable committee substitute unfavorable original bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Committee substitute calender original bill unfavorable calender. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative's Brown, Burr, Jones, and Lambeth are recognized to send forth committee report the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative's Brown, Burr, Jones, and Lambeth house bill thirteen amend health school assessment requirements. Favorable and re-referred education K though twelve. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The bill is re-referred to the committee on education K tweleve. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Introduction of bills resolution the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one twenty eight representative's Bushali, referendum for certain school ??. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Local government if favorable finance if favorable elections. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one twenty nine representative's Elmore, Dobson, Holloway, and McNeill high achieving tuition scholarships. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Education community colleges if favorable education universities if favorable appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one thirty representative Howard, David county food for detention facilities. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Local government if favorable ray reform. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one thirty one representative Presnell, town of Megavalley the annexation. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Local government if favorable finance. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House joint resolution one thirty two representative's Jordan, Schaffer, Glazier, and Elmore, the same constitutional convention columns. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Judiciary one. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one thirty three representatives Jordan, Jones, Brockman, Stam modify special education scholarships. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Education K twelve if favorable appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one thirty four representatives Glazier, Davis, Hamilton, and McGrady soliciting prostitution immunity for minors. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Judiciary two. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one thirty five representatives Dollar, B. Brown, Torbett and S. Martin modernize physical therapy practice. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Rules counted operations in the house. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill one thirty six representative
Senator Stevens, speed limit highway work zone. The process that was followed . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] Transportation in favorable, judiciary three. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 137, Representative Baskerville, school calendar flexibility. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Education K-12. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 138, Representative Carney, L. Johnson, L. ??, and Glazier, Arts Education requirement. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Education K-12. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House Bill 139, Representatives Conrad and Lambeth, Going on private school property, Forsyth County. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Judiciary one. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 140, Representatives Hastings, Bradford, Littleton, and finally Butterfield, Fireman Appreciation Day, North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGE] $50 million dollars, in terms of just finishing the project rather than starting over. Additionally the project that was getting done between 77 and . . . [SPEAKER CHANGE] Rules counted, operations of the house. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 141, Representatives Jeter, Cotham, Cunningham, and Bradford, storm water flooding control activities. [SPEAKER CHANGE] In the process of delving it and getting it done as a design build process, it was a design build project. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Environment in favorable of local government. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 142, Representative Torbett and Speciale, Fire safety helmets under 21. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Insurance. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 143, Representatives Bishop, Cunningham, Cotham, and Bradford, Solid civil service board. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Local government. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 144, Representative Lambeth, Appropriations 2015. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Calendar. Actually only kidding to see if you were paying attention. Appropriations. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House drawn resolution to bill 145, Representative Lambeth, B. Brown, Dobson, and Jones, Preserve federal community health fund. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Please count it as operations of the house. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 146, Representative Lambeth, Jones, Conrad, and Ross, Amend advance health care, directive loss. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Judiciary one. [SPEAKER CHANGE] House bill 147, Representatives Ross, Stam, Boles, and J. Bell, Update fire and rescue commission memberships. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Insurance. Messages from the senate, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Following message was sent from the senate. Senate bill 19, committee substitute, second edition, a bill to entitle an act to make technical and clarifying changes to various revenue laws recommended by the revenue law study committee. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Bill is referred to the committee on finance. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I don't understand what, if any input that local ?? has and now we have a lane that no one is using and we don't have a decision yet, and we're trying to figure out what to do next. We have a lane and what are we going to do with it? Some people want to poll it, of course, and some people make it an ??, of course, and some people just want to be able to drive, to be able to get from point A to B. That's what I'm trying to give it to you straight. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'd be glad to talk to you additionally at a different time, and bring along folks that they will be, have been present at the regional decisions. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'd like a briefing on that, ?? would be good. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members, if you'll take a look at your calendar. The consultation with the clerks office and with staff, the Chair rules that house bill 117, The NC compete sect is a roll call bill. Therefore it will be moved ahead of senate bill 20. It will also have to have a second reading today and a third call reading tomorrow as a roll call bill. Calendar, house bill 117, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative S. Martin, Jeter, Collins, and Steinburg, house bill 117, a bill towards the entire re-enact the North Carolina competes act. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman, the lady from Wilson, Representative Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Members, in the interest of trees . . . Can I have order, Mr. Speaker? I can't hear. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The Chair would ask any members wishing to have conversations to step outside. There is a lot of noise and the lady is having difficulty being heard. The lady from Wilson has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the interest of trees I have given you several documents they have made available on the dashboard. There have been a lot of debate on this bill. We've had really good conversations. We heard it in
Finance and Appropriations. It was voted out overwhelmingly with good support. We considered in detail a lot of amendments; we accepted some, we rejected others, so we’ve had a thorough vetting of this bill. Some of the documents that were shared in Finance were not made available in Appropriations; I have some extra handouts here, but they are on the dashboard, as well as a summary and some papers that are coming around. So I think most members are fully aware of what the bill does – some minor changes to our Job Development Investment Grant Program, marrying some programs regarding data centers, and the airline fuel tax, so I’d like to just open up if there’s any questions, and consider that we’ve had a full debate on this bill already. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Columbus, Representative Waddell rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. To speak on the bill and send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman with to send forth an amendment before debating the bill? [SPEAKER CHANGES] If you please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Columbus is recognized to send forth an amendment. The Clerk will read. Will the gentleman state which amendment? It appears the gentleman has submitted two amendment to the Clerk. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s amendment AMC-20, version 2. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman may send forth the amendment. Do members have the amendment on their dashboard? [SPEAKER CHANGES] It’s on the dashboard, yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Members of the House… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman will suspend. The Clerk will read the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Waddell moves to amend the bill on page 4, lines 39 through 45, by rewriting the lines to read… [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now the gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As Representative Martin said, yesterday we had a good conversation about House Bill 117 in Finance. I think it’s been pretty well-vetted. Secretary Skvarla is certainly on board with trying to push this bill. My amendment simply recognizes the fact that in the rural areas of North Carolina, we are trying our best to try and get industry or manufacturing concerns or whatever we can there. I looked at the information that Commerce has, I pulled up information from my counties – Columbus, Bladen and Robeson – and found some very interesting information. I’m going to be as brief as I can here, but basically looking at Columbus County, when I graduated from high school in Columbus County, it had 50,000 people. If you’ll look at what Commerce puts out, the projected population in Columbus now is about 58,574. In 2019, it’s projected to go down by about 200. Now what that says basically to me, growing up on a farm where farmers basically were driving the economy in these rural areas and small farms were the thing, that we had a lot of employees. People stayed at home, they worked on the farm, and it’s changed a whole lot in my 40 years. Now you’ve got big farmers, less employees, more machines, less opportunities for employment, so we have what is called in North Carolina a qualified investment of using a billion dollars to use what’s called a single sales tax factor, and I think it’s a good thing. I’ve researched both sides of it. All this amendment does, simply, is takes the one billion dollars that we’re using for qualified capital, and reduces it to 500 million dollars for tier 1 and tier 2 counties. It does not eliminate the number for tier 1 counties; it just reduces it for tier 1 and tier 2. Folks, there cannot be any fiscal note on this because nothing ventured, nothing gained. We haven’t gotten the industry here, we haven’t gotten the tax dollars in, so all I’m asking you is to consider this. Consider this, especially if you’re from a rural area. It’s just another carrot that you can use – as the old saying goes, another tool in the toolbox to try and get these folks into these rural areas, get them some jobs. We’ve talked about jobs up here. Let’s do something about jobs. I’m tired of listening to the rhetoric, so I appreciate your support.
What purpose does the gentleman from Nash representative Collins rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Well I'm the primary sponsor of this responsible for carrying this section so I'll be the one that responds to this particular amendment. I would ask that you vote no on this amendment for several reasons. The way this current statute is written for single sales tax treatment was written to provide this benefit for one company that's come to North Carolina already. The way it's expanded, I don't think there's any secret here in this chamber probably at least a couple of sections of this bill have been written to help try to snag one of these auto manufacturers that are finally looking at North Carolina. And in particular a spot in eastern North Carolina that could really use it. And this is designed so that they will qualify. Yet, most of your sales liability has to be due to property if your going to meet this qualification currently. Well an auto manufacturer not only builds expensive property they pay high payroll so they won't qualify under this same criteria. So we're trying to make sure they will qualify for this. Now I work in a profession where if you use the word guarantee in a sales presentation or an ad your probably going to get sued. And I cannot guarantee you what the senate will do with anything we send them. But I will tell you this short of a guarantee, I will be shocked beyond description if they don't try to expand this section far beyond what representative Wadell is trying to do. But since we don't know how much this is going to cost us or anything, and so this bill doesn't get any more controversial, I would like to see us pass this bill without this amendment. The senate is going to give us something much more broad than this and we're going to have to see how much they give us we can stand for frankly when it comes back. So I would ask very kindly for the success of this bill to vote no on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion, further debate. For what reason does the gentleman from Wake representative Dollar rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'll be brief but [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you. I'll be brief but to follow up on what representative Collins has said. The gentleman hasn't been able to determine the financial impact but I can tell you that in the out years the financial impact would be quite substantial to the state budget. So at this time I would agree with representative Collins please vote no on this amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham representative Hall rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I know we've talked much in the last few days about the two North Carolina's efforts or supposed willingness to do what we can to provide economic development to all our rural counties and rural areas as well. We've talked about the inequities and all the formulas we used. We've talked about the excessive political power our larger counties have and Durham is one of those counties to get a disproportionate share of those benefits because of what we already have. So it follows for our larger metropolitan areas and urban areas the synergies happen that bring more business there naturally. In this situation we have an opportunity to help our rural areas. Bring them along provide some relief some opportunity to those areas more than we'd normally do. I'd ask that you support the amendment. Let's try to make North Carolina one North Carolina. Let's not keep piling on and making it two North Carolina's. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does the gentleman from Ash, representative Jordan rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker I don't think it's much of a secret I hate this entire bill one seventeen. But if we're going to do stuff like in one seventeen let's at least help the areas that need the help and that's the rural areas. Seventy six percent of previous incentives have gone to Wake and Deckemberg. That's not where the money needs to be. So I'll support anything to make this bill better and I'll support the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does the lady from Wilson representative Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Changes to the single sales factor are more comprehensive than what we can do on in a substantial way as part of this bill. It does have long term appropriations impact so we're looking at the future of the budget. So it's really a bigger tax reform type of conversation. So I completely support us moving in this direction. But I don't think we have the information that we need at this time to do that. So I would respectfully ask people who are interested in seeing this bill pass to reject this amendment. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash representative Collins rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Debate the amendment a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGE] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment a second
GANRVT [0:00:00.0] I guess maybe I wasn’t clear the first time I spoke, I come from a tier 1 area, that’s the area we go from worst to best, get those confused anyway… [SPEAKER CHANGES] That’s an important. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Folks if we can locate, if we can land one of those plans in ?? County and that will do more for North Eastern, North Carolina which is mostly Tier 1 counties that anything you can possibly do. The passage of this bill as it is gives us a chance to transfer the North Eastern and North Carolina from a word of the state to the contributor to the states economy which will help all of you no matter where you come from. I plead as one from this effective area, from a Tier 1 County please helps us pass this bill by defeating this amendment and give us a chance, thanks. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members get back to their seats. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Saying none, the question before the house is the passage of amendment 1 offered by Representative ??, so many favoring passage of the amendment will vote aye, those oppose will vote no, the clerk will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? is the gentleman wish to record. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote, 55 having voted in the affirmative and 62 in the negative, the amendment fails. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative ?? does the gentleman wish to sent forward the second amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker I wish to withdraw. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The amendment is withdrawn. For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill for a period of not more than five minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, I requested that and if the clerk could ring the bell at five minutes so I will wrap up and that’s because I left my whole speech on your desk Monday night and I know you have take it home and read it. Seen is believing but we also know that there are optical delusions, mirages, my grant children have card tricks that I can’t figure out how that work, we used to think that I written this ID was the gold standard for figuring out who committed the crime. Now, we know that it’s probably the least reliable way of figuring out who is there and thank goodness we now have DNA. So the question is whether you are gonna believe your eyes or you gonna believe me. Alright, by observation we see that the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around the Earth but we know that’s not true. Satiation teaches that correlation does not imply causation. About 2,500 years ago the HX categorize logical fallacies and one of them is post talk or ?? which Representative Cleveland reminded me means after this therefore because of this is a logical fallacy but for those of you unlike Representative Cleveland who don’t know ??, it’s the rooster close because he thinks he made the Sun come up, the entire basis for this bill is it if we can locate some game changers, some transformers that will improve our state but the academic research is to the contrary and I just put one on your desk Monday night from the Southern Journal of Economics, the economical facts justify the use of fiscal incentives. The conclusion after studying 109 different industry, big industry locations conclusion the result show that large firms fail to produce significant net benefits for their host communities calling into question the highest tax bidding over jobs and investment. And then if you go to the end of the article which I’m sure you have read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from there, Representative Tom raise? Representative Stam was the gentleman through I was not to stay here five minutes I gave you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My apologizes the gentleman from Wake continues to have the balance for just five minutes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay. Conclusion, one thing seems clear recruitment… [0:04:59.4] [End of file…]
did not lead to more rapid regional growth in all likelihood the absence of significant growth impacts means that large companies simply displace other sources of job and income growth in the regional economy. In other words your taking the money form George and given it to J.H. Your taken it from all the small business's and given it to the shareholders of the big business's. Your takin it, in one case recently, from the tax payers of Lake county and given it to Lenovo so they'll move from Durham county across the line into Wake county. There's no net increase in the income of the region by doing this. And it's very expensive, thank you Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Now for what purpose does the gentleman from Dare representative Tine rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Send forth an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Gentleman is recognized to send forth an amendment the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine moves to amend the bill on page four line eight by adding after the line the following language to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Dare has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. This amendment is fairly simple and as we've looked at this program I've been very thankful to the bill sponsor who put in an amendment to make sure more funding could actually go to tier one counties. If we do awards in tier three counties we went form twenty five percent to thirty percent which I appreciate very much. The problem that we've had in this state is that we haven't actually utilized this fund to it's full capacity in the past. So money has been left there and then we as a general assembly as money is left around we tend to go after it and use it for other purposes. So we've had some money come out of this account over the last few years. So the purpose of this amendment is to simply expand the utilization of this account for expanding infrastructure in rural communities. So it very simply says you can also use it to expand the existing job base or retention of existing jobs. So our issue in rural communities is more building upon what we have as opposed to trying to bring big business's from outside. So this just gives us another tool in the tool belt to make that happen so I commend the amendment to you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] One housekeeping matter very quickly the chair announces the escort committee for the chief justice is follows. Representative Stevens chair. Representatives Szoka, Jackson, Jordan, and farmer Butterfield and Baskerville. The senate will be so notified. Also, the chair would like to take the opportunity to welcome a special guest and a friend of the house and extend the courtesy of the floor to former representative Danny Mobley who's in the back of the chamber. Representative Mobley glad to have you here today. Representative Mobley you've picked a good day to visit us we have a lot of things going on today it's good to see you. For what purpose does the lady from Wilson representative Martin rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. I'd like to than representative Tine for bringing forward this amendment and for working in conjunction with me and commerce. We've had a lot of discussion about what are we doing to really improve things for our tier one and tier two counties. And it's not just landing the big fish there's a lot of things we need to do. So he is correct in that the utility fund when large companies come in and they locate in tier three money is set aside to benefit tier one and tier two counties. But we have not always done the best job of making sure that it gets out there. So this expands our ability to strengthen those tier counties which may not be directly related to a new job coming at that time but we need those to be strong the infrastructure to be there so this gives us more flexibility to use those funds to grow and improve our tier one and two counties. So I commend the amendment to you and ask you to support it. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham, is this not on the amendment? The gentleman from Ash is this on the amendment? Okay. For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender representative Millis rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker to ask representative Tine a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Dare yield to the gentleman from Pender? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Tine I understand your intent of what you actually shared of the explained amendment. And I have to say that I'm wholly sarcastic whenever I hear government say that I'm saving or retaining jobs. Again you hear about this king of ?? a whole lot. How is this going to be enforced and how will we as a state not going to be extorted when you have a company that says I'm going to put more infrastructure in the ground in rural North Carolina and by the way I'm about to lay off two hundred
but if you give me some money out of your utility account our state will be all good an I'll give you a thumbs up and a nice little wink. I understand your intent but this seems to me that this could be incredibly flawed to the judgement of our tax payers. [SPEAKER CHANGES] First of all this is infrastructure so it doesn't leave with the company, it's infrastructure for the area that it goes to. And the example I would use is in Hyde county we have a water plant that is for the entire business district of Englehard which is six seven eight buildings that are mostly commercial fishing small business's. That infrastructure is about to go away because it has major flaws. This might be the type of money that might be available to improve that. You can't ask those business's if we improve the infrastructure are you going to stay but the county itself doesn't have the money to improve the infrastructure so it's just another tool in the toolbelt to be able to address those types of issues and promote economic development. But in regards to is there like a claw back or something like that, we get the infrastructure back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker follow up. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Dare yeild additional questions from the gentleman from Pender? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I fully understand your intent and again I am fully supportive of the aspects of infrastructure by all means so what your sharing here and the actual tool in the toolbox that you shared in your example is spot on. My fear is it being used in an improper way and my question is in your language, does it have enough of a fence around it to make sure it's used for the intent you articulated and not for the intent of the existing business's to extort to put in infrastructure in the ground. The reason why I say that is my fear is, yes infrastructure once it's put in is there. My fear is whenever your putting infrastructure in for falsified demand. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And I would say that there's probably ways somebody could create an issue with it. Just like every other government program that I think exists out there. To some degree you provide the oversight that, the problem is if we make it too tight and we say you have to guarantee these jobs, then we can't do something that's good for an entire community for retaining jobs in that entire community. So it's a balance act. You may feel this is out of balance I feel it strikes the right one. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion further debate on the amendment. Seeing none. The question before the house is amendment two sent forth by representative Tine. Somebody favoring the adoption of the amendment will vote aye those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. One hundred and eight having voted in the affirmative and eleven in the negative the amendment is adopted. For what purpose does the gentleman from Ash representative Jordan rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Ash has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker. Representative Stam gave you some nice hypotheticals about Lenovo moving from one county to another. I want to give you a story that's actually happened in my county I won't leave all the details there because of, so the guilty parties are protected. We have lots of empty storage building empty buildings, empty offices and so forth in my part of the state. Which is in the Northwest corner which somehow is going to benefit from everything going on in the eastern part of the state somehow. I hope so. But, we had this one empty place and the state gave our commissioners money to fix that place up. So that they could encourage a company to come in to this building. The company was from the county next door. The company was of the same industry that we already had four in our county. Small county, we're a very small county. So we gave money to a company to come across the county line to be in a very nice new building to compete against four existing folks, two of which had been there over a hundred years family companies in our county. The situation with jobs didn't change because they just took jobs from the existing business's. There's no net benefit to our county and in fact two of the existing four are now out of business. My friends this what you do when you use incentives. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rockingham representative Jones rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman from Rockingham has the floor to debate the bill.
Thank you Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen of the House, it's very difficult for me to stand up and speak against this bill. I know that the administration is for it. I have only the greatest respect for the bill sponsors that are bringing this forward. I know it's very well-meaning and I know for a fact that everybody that sits in this chamber is for jobs. I represent two Tier 1 counties that have been among the highest unemployment in this state for as long as I can remember and I have lived there all my life. I was born there. So I understand and I understand what some of these representatives are trying to do, particularly the ones that are trying to bring something to their area where it's a depressed area. I understand why a Representative would be desperate to do everything they possibly can to bring jobs, even if it violates their conscience somewhat to do so. And we've heard some say, I don't like this, I'm against this, I've been against this, but I've got to do it. And I've listened carefully to all the arguments, the emotions, the anecdotes, the cliches, but I've also looked at a broader set of facts. Some of the things that Representative Stam spoke of and Representative Jordan and I want to mention them a little bit as well, but let me say this. I do want to thank the sponsors of this bill for the respectful way that they have brought forth this debate. I do want to say that I think it's unfortunate that at times those of us that oppose this idea, we are marginalized or we're often dismissed as being closed-minded ?? or purists riding on our high horse, or people that just don't understand how business really works. So I think at least we should acknowledge that there's a long list of facts and studies published by every kind of group out there. And interpreted both by liberal groups and conservative groups that all strongly oppose this. Whether they interpret those facts from the lens of the right or from the left. There are not too many things that these conservative and liberal groups will agree on but they agree on this and they're strongly opposed to it. But let's make sure that we understand the real debate today. We're not here to decide whether or not North Carolina will continue to use incentives. That's not what this bill is about. Let's acknowledge at least for the record that what we are here about is dramatically increasing the use of these incentives in our state. So what do we hear? Well we hear it works. Well of course it works. Of course it works. If you spend enough money, you can create some jobs. Of course you can entice some jobs, particularly if you're willing to rob Peter to pay Paul, to create the job. But yes, it works. You know, a little analogy, you can spend a half million dollars on a car. And I certainly hope it would work. I think it would. I think it would work well. But you could also take the argument that you can spend 25 times less on that car and spend all the other money on all the other things that you might need and I think most of us here understand that the art of politics, the real world is that we have limited resources, and we have a lot of needs in this state. Depending on what you think those needs are, we could all agree on a lot of them. And so we are making choices here. That's what it's all about. We are making choices with a limited budget. Well we hear this is the right time. You know, it's always the right time. When I came here four years ago, in 2011, North Carolina had unemployment between 10 and 11%, fifth worst in the nation, and we were hearing it's the right time. The ox is in the ditch. We've got to do this. We've got to do everything we can, we are desperate for jobs. So now we're here four years later. And the unemployment rate has been pretty much cut in half. And again I represent one of those areas where it's still higher, but statewide it's pretty much been cut in half. We're around the national average. I think this month we're a little better than the national average. But the point is it's still the right time. This is the right time. This is the best time. We've got to do this now. Well, we keep hearing that all of these state, all of our neighboring states are just kicking our rear ends. That's what we hear. So I looked at the latest unemployment figures. North Carolina, 5.5%. South Carolina, 6.5%. Tennessee, 6.6%. Georgia, 6.9%. All these other states
AIHOIC [0:00:00.0] …All that we hear of beading this out because of other heavy incentives compared to what we do but yet we have a significantly better employment rate. And by the way, I didn’t leave anything on your desk but about half an hour ago I did send you an email and we could talk about that and the article that I sent you had to do with one of our neighboring states and how their debt is now continuing to go up and they are talking about the use of these incentive programs and why that happens. We hear all the analogies, it’s a game, we got to play the game, there will be game changer, we all wanna win the game but we got to do it better than everybody else, we got to do it more than everybody else more as better and we can never do enough because somebody else that they are doing more but it’s a game and we got to win the game. So we hear all about the game and I’m a sports fan, we wanna win the game. Or if the sports analogy didn’t work maybe we hear the military analogy, if we don’t do it, it’s unilateral disarmament, I don’t think we should lay down all of our weapons but I do think there are some better weapons out there we could use, weapons like free markets and fair competition and a level playing field, and things like that, making our state more business friendly and what we do and we have done that and we are gonna continue to do it. But we need to understand that there is an opportunity cost, we never talked too much about opportunity cost what else could we will do. In 2009, there was a very well sighted study, it was done right here at UNC, the UNC’s Kenan-Flagler School of Business where they sit in the previous decade North Carolina in it’s JDIG Program has spend about 3 billion dollars and we came up with 300 jobs. We heard a lot about that four years ago, we don’t seem to be hearing a lot about it today but there is an opportunity cost there and I would tell you as a former County Commissioner of that tier 1 County that I came from yes we try to ?? and try to get some of the promise from the table that we are going to mainly our rule, our urban areas and our wealthy areas, and we talk a little bit about these statistics with that. Sure, we will try to get some comments from the table and we all are and that’s another thing that’s wrong with it not only pit state against state, it pits county against county, it pits community against community, we are trading like pigs coming to a troff and trying to get our fare share and I would say if my county had got our proportional share over the years and I look at the 30 million dollar share out of that 3 billion dollars, it would have been transformational to my county with 30 million dollars would mean it would be huge. What we hear everybody does it, everybody does it, I think there is a lot of parents in the room, I don’t know about you, how that argument would fly your house when your children come home and says, “Well, everybody does it and that makes it okay.” Actually everybody doesn’t do it or everybody doesn’t do it to the same degree that we hear that everybody does it. This might be a good deal for the less than one-tenth of 1% of North Carolina businesses that actually get these incentives but for the most it does not, for the 800,000 plus small businesses in the State that actually pay the higher taxes so that their money can actually go to businesses that often times complete against them and put them at a disadvantage and that’s not fair, that’s no fair and I understand the world we live in is not fair and you can say the Federal Government makes the rules and by the way that’s another thing that we hear. Well, the Federal Government comes in and changes things and will do things differently. Well, ladies and gentlemen until states like North Carolina standup and take a leadership role and show that we can do things right and that we can compete and that we can have lower unemployment rates and that we can bring jobs by turning the free markets and fair competition and level playing field and better business friendliness, they are not gonna change the rules, they are not gonna change the rules. So everybody says, “I hate this but we have to do it.” Let me just close and just say, let’s acknowledge and I respect every vote in this room however you come down vote your contents. But let’s at least acknowledge that there are lot of facts out there, there are lot of journals, there are lot of articles that have been published from universities all over the country from tanks on the right and on the left, those who have to speak against this or not just people that don’t have any idea what we are talking about or let’s at least have a respect for debate, and let’s acknowledge that there are many costs beyond just the dollars that are on this piece of paper, there are opportunity costs, and we have got agriculture in this state, the number one economic driver, we have got tourism the number two… [0:05:00.3] [End of file…]
NNSQVW [0:00:00.0] Think of what the investment and infrastructure could remain to agriculture in the state and the tourism in the state but we are gonna make a choice that we are gonna give these incentives to just a few businesses. So again, we are not debating today just the way the North Carolina is going to give economic incentives or not and that’s not yet. We are deciding today are we gonna put the program on steroids, or we gonna wretch it up to this degree, and that’s the choice that you have to make ladies and gentlemen vote your contents, I will vote mine, I will vote against this bill, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Craven, Representative Speciale raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] ??___[00:44] said, “What the government gives it must first take away.” We own nothing, the Government owns nothing ladies and gentlemen, we keep talking about Government Funds, and we kept talk about tax money this and that. That belongs to the people, that belongs to the folks sitting up here and over here, that belongs to everybody outside these doors, and we don’t take the time to think about what we are doing and how we are spending their money, how many of these people, how many of the people outside those doors paid their taxes through the force of law so that we as the anointed ones or vision of the anointed we know better than everybody that we can pick the winners and the losers, we can pick which businesses are gonna make it and which ones are not, and we do this with no risk to ourselves because it’s not our money. Now, if we had to take the money out of our pockets and we have to make bets on which presences will succeed and which ones wouldn’t, I bet it would be taken a whole different view of this, but we own nothing and it belongs to the people, we were on the right track for the last few years, and we are doing everything to destroy that. North Carolina is moving up on poll after poll after poll and here we are, we voted against this type of thing, we ?? it out for months to attract a sensation last year for the next year month and more. But in the end we got rid of it, we got rid of JDIG, we got rid of whatever recalling it now whether the money goes out on the front end or the backend is irrelevant, the programs are the same, it’s just different people, different time, different sessions thinking that they have got the best ideas and ladies and gentlemen we don’t, these types of things fail time after time after time. JDIG grants according to John Locke Foundation, JDIG grants last up to 12 years, and very few of them have been successful. Now, we gave it a new name so it’s not called JDIG but essentially we are looking at the same type of stuff. Very few JDIG deals have actually going to ?? of the 201 grants that have been awarded since 2002 only three have gone full-term of the original bill, three. 73 have either been withdrawn or terminated, all other part of the grant has been returned or forfeited for non-compliance or back, and only nine JDIG are works since we lost money. So let me rephrase that, we didn’t loose money, people have lost money, those people outside that door lost money, here we are and once again this is a new program and we got a new program, we got a better idea, we got different people running it, it’s all the same things, it’s all the same thing, and we were on track with our tax reforms fixing all the things that we did, we made the state better. And now, these types of things will trying to dismantle what we have done. We don’t have funding for transportation, we don’t have funding for medicate, and merely the other programs but ?? we have funding, we somehow manage to come up with millions that we are going to give a way based on our vision of the anointed ones again winners and the losers in business. Let me tell you something ladies and gentlemen, no matter who we pick to get these incentives, those folks up there lose, everybody outside this door looses. I hope you will think about what you are doing, I hope you remember why you came up here. [0:05:00.5] [End of file…]
For what purpose does the gentleman from Cabarrus, Representative Pittman, rise? [Speaker Changes] To speak on the bill. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Thank you sir. There seems to be a misconception at least looks to me a misconception among some supporters of this bill, that those that oppose it are anti-business. Nothing could be further from the truth. I believe we are all pro-business, knowing that businesses are necessary for adequate employment. But I think I see here however, and please forgive me if this isn't the way you feel, but I think some do, that a lot of folks who are businessmen and businesswomen seem to think that they've come to Raleigh to run the business world. I contend that that approach to business is not appropriate to do here in the legislature. Whatever we do back home, we are not businesspeople here. We are the government. It is none of the government's business to run business. It is our job to create a climate favorable to business, get out of the way, and let the free enterprise system take care of itself. We do that through lowering taxes, reducing burdensome regulations, and requiring everyone to deal honestly with each other, not by giving the taxpayers' money to corporations that are only concerned about the bottom line and getting their share. Now I know some folks simply don't see it. They are good people. But they, and they mean well, but they don't understand somehow that the demand for economic incentives is a form of extortion. Our citizens have a right to expect better from their government than to volunteer to be blackmailed and make excuses for it because the taxpayers will pay for it and not us. Businesses have the right to sell their products and services to customers who are willing to pay for those and thus make a living. They do not have the right to be given taxpayers' money to remove from them the challenge and financial burden of building a business that others have to bear for themselves. When government misappropriates tax dollars to pick and choose businesses to favor over others, not only is that government interference, but it makes it harder for government to fulfill its own legitimate functions and obligations. We're told that we have to do this because everyone else is doing it, and to me that doesn't sound like an appropriate statement or responsible adult statement. It sounds to me, I'm sorry, like an adolescent excuse. For this corrupt system to be the norm today, someone had to be the first to say yes to it. For our society to wake up and cleanse ourselves from such corruption, someone has to be the first to say “no, never again”. I ask you to stand up for honesty and integrity and the free enterprise system and let North Carolina lead the way and turn down this unscrupulous and crooked way of doing business. I believe in the free enterprise system. This is not it. Please vote no on this bill. [Speaker Changes] For what purpose does the gentleman from ??, Representative Steinberg, rise? [Speaker Changes] Slowly. To speak on the bill, please. [Speaker Changes] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [Speaker Changes] Ladies and gentlemen of the House, I respect a lot of what my colleagues have said today, voicing their views on why we should not be offering economic incentives of any kind. And I know their position because that's been my position for many, many years. So I've heard all of the arguments. I know them all very well. And nothing here today that I heard has surprised me nor enlightened me in any way. And I say that with all due respect. Representative Jones, who is probably one of my dearest friends in the General Assembly, and he and I are on opposite ends of this particular bill but we're so often joined at the hip on others, mentioned the fact, he was quoting unemployment rates. And New York, or rather North Carolina has made great progress in bringing the unemployment rate down by some of the actions that we have taken already in this body over the last four or five years. However, you can use numbers in any way you choose. If you want to say our unemployment rate is at 5.2 or 5.3%, I won't argue with you. And I think that's a dramatic improvement on where we've been in the past. But if you want to talk about the unemployment rate in rural North Carolina, let's take a look at those rates. I have almost all tier one counties out of the six counties that I am privileged and honored to represent here in the General Assembly.
And I know the desperation, the fight, the struggle that folks have had to try and obtain a job to provide a living for themselves and their family. An opportunity to have an education that goes behind K through 12 for their children. We are sending tons of money to rural North Carolina whether we pass this bill or not. That's a fact, because we are going to have to uphold and help those areas that are struggling in various and sundry ways. What I'm suggesting is I think we need to begin to have a shift in our mindset, and let's think once again about investing in people. Let's think about investing those people who are so desperate, not to collect an unemployment check, not to be on welfare, but they want an opportunity. That's what we were sent here to do. Above everything else, we were sent here not to swear allegiance to any one ideology, but as Republicans and Democrats, representing, and unaffiliated, we, we are here to, to represent the folks and to try and bring them good government, to try to bring them opportunity, to try and give them, above everything else, hope. Hope. H-O-P-E. Hope. I don't want to go back to my district, and I'm sure many of my rural colleagues on both sides of the aisle, do not want to go back to their districts and tell voters that, you know something? We had an opportunity to bring a lot of jobs to this region, but I'll tell you what. I stayed within the box. I didn't budge. I am against incentives. Aren't you happy? Yeah, they're happy all right. They had a chance to get 1000 jobs, 500 jobs, 200 jobs, 50 jobs, and no, those folks aren't very happy at all, because you're asking them now to wait until another opportunity presents itself. Everybody knows what this bill is about. This bill is on a fast track because we're talking about an automobile industry coming to North Carolina, perhaps maybe even three. We are incentivizing through this bill those three businesses, but what we are not considering is the ripple effect. Everybody else that does business with that company is coming to North Carolina with jobs whether we incentivize them or not, because they have to be here. If it's a truck plant and they have a certain kind of tire or certain components, the folks who are putting those vehicles together are saying we want you here. So when we're talking about incentives, let's look at the big picture. Not just who is being incentivized, but what is the result of that company being incentivized, and if we can transform these two almost destitute parts of the state, Eastern North Carolina and Western North Carolina, if we can begin to transform them and give these people hope, then we truly will be one North Carolina. Please ladies and gentlemen, please support this bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mister Speaker? [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose, for what purpose does the lady from New Hanover, Representative Hamilton rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if my good friend from Edenton, Representative Steinberg would answer a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Chowan yield to the lady from Hanover? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, I do. It's good to see you back again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I don't know where you've been, but good to see you back. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative. Well, I've been trying to make a living a little bit. It's tough, it's tough around these parts. I'm glad to hear of your change of heart about incentives and bringing businesses to North Carolina as a whole. I campaigned on the need for incentives, not the desire to have them, but the need for them in order to be competitive. I believe strongly in this, this bill and the programs that are listed in it. But I wonder, how would you feel about expanding this bill to include other credits and other incentives that have gone by the wayside in recent years because of inaction by this general assembly to restore those jobs to other areas of the state? [SPEAKER CHANGES] That's an excellent question and I'm not surprised you asked it. Thank you, thank you
question. I am obviously in favor of bringing jobs to each and every part of the state, including your part of the state. I think one of the objectives of this particular bill was to try and run a clean a bill as possible and not have various incendiary, wait, let me finish, okay, and not be tying everything else into it. For example, as you know, I am a big proponent of the historic tax credits and I am going to, as a matter of fact I have already co-sponsored a bill to try and get that through the General Assembly, certainly through the House and I would have no problems talking with you about supporting your particular initiative. But I think jumbling up this bill with all sorts of other initiatives would be counterproductive and we have to ultimately look at this bill passing through the Senate as well. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Certainly, second question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman yield to an additional question from the lady, he yields. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Of course I do, yes, Mr. Speaker, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thakn you, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair hates to disrupt this conversation between the two members but if the two could frame a question and an answer that would be most appreciated. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I guess it's are you troubled by the, you talk about a clean bill and 117 being a clean bill, are you troubled at all by the extension oft he tax credit for commercial airlines until 2020. I think that's the part that doesn't fit for me in this particular bill, otherwise I would agree with you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, may I answer, Mr. Speaker? Okay, alright, thank you. In meetings that I have attended, been privileged to, including the one in which that particular portion was added to this bill, there are some issues of urgency as it relates to transportation issues, airline issues, in Charlotte, North Carolina, which is, you know, is a hub for a very major airline. And I am not going to try and put words in the airlines mouths or certainly in Representative Jeter's mouth, who's from that district, and other representatives from Charlotte. They would be better at speaking to that than I, but I do know that losing that hub would be critical. That is something that is currently in existence and we're trying to keep it. So I hope I've, tried to answer your question. Yes, thank you, and it is good to see you again. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Nash, Representative Collins, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You know, if we were just having a philosophical argument I'd probably have to agree with some of what's been said today. I agree, I'm very much a free market person. I don't believe we need to be taking people's hard earned money and tax money and spending it any way we want to. That's why about the only type of incentive I'm ever willing to vote for is one like the one we're talking about here where money that doesn't exist because the company is not doing business in North Carolina, comes to North Carolina. We have additional tax money and for want of a better word we rebate them a fraction of that tax money for a certain period of time. That's nothing at all like some of the other things people are trying to get us to restore where people who don't pay any taxes in North Carolina, we pay some of their expenses or if you can just check off the right ten boxes you get this tax credit regardless of whether we think this is going to create anything for North Carolina or not. Realize, this is a whole different program. And we're not talking about a philosophical situation, folks, let's face it. This bill is being propounded right now and it's time sensitive because we do finally have three auto manufacturers, at least, that I know about and there may be more, three that I'm aware of, looking at locating in North Carolina. Now, if you don't think these are the type of businesses that are worth going after and if you don't think other business people think these are the type of businesses worth going after, you are sadly mistaken. The people in my area that are working their rear ends off to get one of these companies to come to this location are other small business owners in the region. And they're the ones that are begging me to get this passed. They're begging me to get it passed. They would be astounded if they knew so many of my good colleagues I couldn't convince to vote for this. I know last I voted, I'm sorry that some of these haven't come to your area, and frankly some of this sounds like sour grapes. I know last year I voted for a bill that would keep a thousand jobs in Michele Presnell's area. That's across the state from me. That didn't do me any good. But I'm not here just to represent my district. This auto plant will not be in my district, it will be in a district represented by a democrat. I could care less. It doesn't make any difference. This will be a game changer, not for
...my area, not for East or North Carolina, this will be a game changer for the state, if you don't believe it, has anyone been to Greenville, Spartanburg, South Carolina in the last ten years? Ask 'em if that's the game changer. For not just that area but for the state. I can tell you who wants this plant to come to this area, the restaurant owners, the department store owners, the grocery store owners, the real estate companies that will finally have some buyers for these houses in our area that are up for sale. The construction company owners that haven't been able to build anything for the last seven years. All of these people hope desperately that these folks will come to our area. I guarantee you every small business, we're not talking about trying to drag out a fifty person mom-and-pop shop to compete with another mom-and-pop shop, that's not what we're talking about in this issue. That's not at all what we're talking about. The real situation is one or more companies, now, more than one of them won't come to the same location, and frankly, the only reason we're in the running for this, frankly, is because they require twelve hundred acres ready to go and we're talking about six sites in North America that fit the bill. And unfortunately, at least one of them's in Mexico, so I know they'll have the wage benefit down there, so we need something, but we're talking about a very real situation where multiples of billions of dollars will be expended immediately. Multiples of thousands of people will be employed immediately. And when that plant grows from four thousand to eight thousand, we won't have to give a dime of that tax money back for that next four thousand. And when sixteen thousand people come in on the ancillary businesses located around these plants, we won't have to give a dime of that tax money back. So, we can talk philosophically about pitting people against other people, as far as I know, the nearest competitor to this auto plant will be in South Carolina, and I don't like the people in South Carolina, frankly. So let's quit talking about stuff this bill's not for, and let's talk about what this bill's designed for, and I hope I can get you to vote for this. If this were born in one of your areas, I would vote for it in a heartbeat, because I would be happy to get, probably by the time the ancillary businesses come in, fifteen to twenty thousand high paying jobs to come to any part of North Carolina, I'd be dancing on my desk this afternoon, and that's an ugly sight, you don't want to see that. But I would beg you, please, for the good of our entire state, if you would like for my area to become a contributor to our state, instead of a ward of the state, please vote green on this bill. Mr Speaker... What purpose does the gentleman from Cumberland, Representative Floyd rise? To see if the Georgia leader ?? would hear for a question. Does the gentleman wish to direct the question to the Rules chairman or the Majority leader? Majority leader. Does the gentleman from Rutherford yield to the gentleman from Cumberland? I do, Mr. Chairman, I think I know where this is going. He yields. Mr. Majority leader, we have five, now we have four o' clock appointment, is there any way that we can sort of bring closure to this discussion? President Floyd, I feel your pain also, I would defer to the Rules Chairman Speaker if we want to do anything, but I will on my part try to bring the discussion to a close as quick as we can. Representative Floyd, the chair would like to shed some light on the schedule today. It is the intention of the chair to take a recess at three thirty, so that everything can be reconfigured so that we can prepare for the joint session that's supposed to begin at four, that's what staff tell me that they need. It would be the chair's hope that we could have a vote by three thirty, but if folks are still feeling the need to debate, the chair's prepared to recess and let us come back and debate after that. But the chair would also remind the body that we also have another bill that's probably going to consume a lot of oxygen also, but that being said, the chair will defer and allow members to have full debate on this bill. Mr. Speaker? For what purpose does the gentleman from Pender, Representative Millis rise? To ask Representative Collins a few questions. Does the gentleman from Nash yield to the gentleman from Pender? He yields. Mr. Collins, I definitely appreciate you actually rising to clarify some things that are missing in this debate, but the first question I want to ask you is, is this bill that we're voting on, is it about the game-changer you talk about, or is it truly about raising the cap of actually these incentive programs, that just doesn't go to the game-changer that you relate to Greenville, South Carolina, but also can go to a lot of other aspects that may not be the game changer and actually could be a loser for us. Now, are we just voting on your game changer, or are we voting on raising the actual threshold of something we've been doing for decades in this state? I would say we are making that game changer possible, and if there's any money left, if we're fortunate enough to get the game changer, and if there's any money left, the answer to your question is going to be yes.
At the center of this is an analysis of lessons in forbidden blessing of the U.S. from your experience in this chamber isn't always associated with this build a product out for a product of an object earlier foxtrot and will have a big win. (SPEAKER CHANGES) But in whatever happens happens if we're continuing to hand out awards and shift the tax burden of witnessing much of the continent of the spills, the game changer when I arrived at the groundhog day hearing a couple years but these islands of a fellow users and the Phillies of in your coffee I've never been three of you ever been hiding my dad is something on my time ever hit a nursing nothing like this, but never had one presented to meet some of our little note I mean, if it was not that none of this magnitude been presented to make all $$I can relate to wooden boat the bill would pass for Michelle Preston Elvis district last few of the closest I can relate to ousted (SPEAKER CHANGES) Mr. Siegelman last West Virginia as the zone from an issue of the 9-7 in the nose of his top last year of receive 10,001 waxy debating here is that when I actually raising the threshold of ju in a manner that his alimony of these are actual monies and retain for a holdings and therefore were giving closely on a possibility of 75% with Collins for some Co. sub receivers on that would you also clarify decided on we not transfer tax burden for one business two dozen receivers to another bombing of encumbering farms of alleged they could be available to other aspects U.S. Navy on it but are we not missing Exxon arguments and it's - the tells you about over dinner off the street in northeast of the knife, I think it's impossible deciding set leader calls if we do if we do not get the company to come here and we don't know what happens in a black and white will double as we know that money was not created by plans to death is that forties of the women's styles of the titles you'd like to produce them on the result is impossible to nine is about is it not only would this conflict in results are not only is the ways of this type of program better than the other are some of my current job of tax department have is that (SPEAKER CHANGES) I'm still waiting for money is generated none is even back from Inglewood July stuff that we have obviously collected from other tax payers and I've given it was not an economic benefit from it I'll have a much more time with¢ you what you call item there does not carry calcium a day without deep also has produced only a marine and all wanted better with our play, it gets leads the Seattle animal manufacture play, easy thing as we could do that might be better off a kid means that if we'd all been a fight your quest is there about a stronger candidate build the Gennifer and has the floor debate about the size and cinnamon of these any briefing here my comments and no one is sure few things with you here the other respects the bill's sponsors as well as the body is still as available to the very respectful way bob Bennett should bring some comets your attention, but not in deathly argued Salaam blue in the face of a regardless of the actions surrounding states are competing for new businesses just slightly year we all are here North Carolina that target of recruitment says are harmful to our state economy enough for government but will not pose an argument today I value the same way that does to cite the benefits of such incentives which are neither the action of taking individuals tax dollars by the force of government and he knows dollars out to a private business or which we're debating today is taxing individual under the full burden of government and in shifting this tax burden to another business to the tune of 75% for violence of a method of shifting burdensome for the role of government from one to another bitter partisan this bill hart press present facts of this action of government intervention in the market of central planning by the way of bureaucrats and politicians who leads in nets job growth in our repeated phrase net job growth 1:00 AM confident that automate economic argument that regardless of the action of other states that if we focus on creating an environment where Johnston blue instead of making dances and bear the full burn of taxation while we forgave another of 75% of such that we would have greater economic growth and greater job growth but said his August of a I want to consider what I believe the most important argument on this matter rebounds of your political affiliation on a stillness house for a few months ago and has sworn off.............
To uphold the constitution of the state of North Carolina with our friends and families and loved ones in the gallery and some of them on the House floor with us, we placed our hand on the Holy Bible and swore this solemn oath. While there are decades of judicial standing that say one thing about target recruitment incentives, until the famous 1996 case at the supreme level, which by the way overturned a lower court ruling in a highly partisan 5-2 vote, but I wanna beg your attention to your oath of office. We swore oath to the document. It is my strong belief, and you can feel free to disagree, that the provision that we are building upon today involving reducing the tax burden of a chosen business by 75% when that same tax burden is not available uniformly to all citizens to achieve is clearly unconstitutional and I wanna beg your attention to two sections of the actual constitution that you swore the oath too. First and foremost it says that we hold these truths to be self-evident that all persons are created equal, that they are endowed by the creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, the enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor and the pursuit of happiness. Note the phrase that we all have the right to the enjoyment of the fruits of our own labor. In addition, in Article 5 Section 2 it says the power of taxation will be exercised in a just and equitable manner for public purposes only and shall never be surrendered or contracted away, just in equitable. How can we take the fruit of labor from one in a non-equal portion and then another and uphold our office as elected officials? Regardless of the public purpose, this action is clearly inequitable on all levels. Do you seriously think the intent of our framers whether you are democrat or republican meant that the power of North Carolina Government is to respect the fruit of labor of one and then disrespect the fruits of another? Ladies and gentlemen, I want to create the opportunity for jobs to grow in this state just as much as the greatest advocate in this chamber, but I will only do so within the purvue of the oath that I swore with my hand on the Holy Bible and I will ask you to consider the same. If our state government is not going to respect the fruit of the labor of our citizens and apply the burden of taxation in an equitable manner, then what other liberties are we going to trample. You and your constituents should be fearful of the actions that are currently underway in this body. I would not dare to build the house, let me back up here, and for those of us who are in the current majority, why would you want to enhance, expand and endorse a flawed foundation that was built before your time. I would not dare to build the house of this majority on a faulty foundation, a foundation that many of you who were here when it was laid denounced and voted against. How can you support the continuation of such efforts now? Why would we not lay a different foundation to build upon, a foundation built solidly within our constitutional purvue and within the principles of true economic growth? No matter how hard you try to justify, theory, application and history prove that government cannot create jobs effectively as individuals, therefore why don't we put our efforts behind supporting measures that are aligned with the principles of individual liberty and limited government? I would encourage you to strongly consider your conscience. Recall the oath that you swore in the presence of you family as well as the presence of Almighty God. Ask yourself are you preserving and expanding liberty or are you aiding and abetting a foundation of tyrannical government? I will rest well knowing that I'm trying with every fiber of my being to create an environment where jobs can grow in this state in line with the very oath that I swore. I encourage you to rest easy as well. To vote against this bill and to join me in pursuing a better path or prosperity for our citizens that we have the privilege to represent. Thank you for your consideration and please vote no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Luebke rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In the interest of time I'll yield till tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Okay, does what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenberg, Representative Jeeter rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] 1992, 21. 1993, 13. 1994, 12. 1995, 16. 1996, 50. 1997, 18. 1998
Speaker: ??<3918>. Those are Brady Anderson's numbers from the
Baltimore Orioles. I bring those up because sometimes steroids work. And
I think that we have to understand that we have ideological differences.
I'll give you another factor. We got a tire company that wanted to
be in North Carolina. They're now 40 miles south of the border for
one reason. We don't have ??
May I have your attention, please? Visitors will please retire from the chamber as the House prepares to resume its session following a recess, thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House will come back to order. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Message from the Senate, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, it is ordered that the message be sent to your honorable body with information pursuant to Senate Joint Resoluation 109, a joint resolution inviting the Honorable Mark Martin, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, to address the joint session of the House of Representatives and the Senate. The Senate stands ready to repair hall of the House, there to sit in joint session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Noted. The Chair directs the court to send a message to the Senate advising that honorable body that we are ready to receive them. Members, while we are awaiting bringing in the Senate, which will be in a few moments, when we conclude the address by Chief Justice Martin and we adjourn the joint session, we will stand in recess for fifteen minutes at that time, to give time to clear out chairs and let folks leave, and then we will come back and resume the business with Senate Bill 20. That will be announced again, also. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Members, but while we're waiting on the Senate the Chair would like to point out that we have a number of officials from around the state that are involved with the judicial process. I believe we have district attorneys, clerks of court, and judges all across the state. We're honored to have you with us today and we welcome you to the House Chamber. Thanks for being with us today. [APPLAUSE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Sergeant at Arms is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, the Senate and it's officers await entrance at the door for your direction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Chair directs the Sergeant at Arms to admit the members of the Senate and their officers and to seat that honorable body. [APPLAUSE]
[NOISE] The sergeant at arms is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker. Pursuant to an invitation extended to them, the chief judge and judges of the court of appeals await the entrance to the chamber, that the chief justice Martin deliver an address to a joint session of the General Assembly. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair directs the sergeant at arms to escort the members of the court of appeals to their respective seats. [APPLAUSE] [NOISE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The sergeant at arms is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, pursuant to an invitation extended to him, the Associate Justice of Spring Court awaits entrance to the chamber, to hear the chief justice deliver the State of the Judiciary address. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The chair directs the sergeant at arms to escort the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court to their respective seats. [APPLAUSE] [NOISE] The chair extends the courtesies of the House to Governor McCoy, Kim Martin, wife of Chief Justice Martin, and their daughter Susannah, the members of the Judiciary and all invited guests. Welcome to the House of Representatives. [APPLAUSE]
[applause] The chair now relinquishes the gavel to lieutenant governor Forest who will preside here in the joint session. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The joint session will come to order. Sergeant at arms is recognized. As soon as we find the sergeant at arms he'll be recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President I have not been presented with any future conversation. [laughter] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Duly noted. The sergeant at arms of the house is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Remove my name from the list of not being ??tuckled. [laughter][applause] Mr. President the chief justice of the supreme court Justice Mark Martin awaits to enter the chamber. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The sergeant at arms of the house and the senate and the escort committee will escort the chief justice to the hall of the house. [applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. President. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Stevens you have the floor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] It is my honor to welcome to our chamber the supreme court justice of North Carolina chief justice Mark Martin. [applause] [SPEAKER CHANGES] Welcome chief justice Martin. The floor is yours. [SPEAKER CHANGES] President Forest, speaker Moore, president ?? Berger, members of the general assembly may colleagues from the supreme court and the court of appeals. Distinguished guest and the people of North Carolina. It is a great honor to have governor Pat Mccrory here with us today. [applause] I am pleased to share that we also have with us this afternoon leaders from our justice system. I would like to recognize a few by name and I would respectfully ask that those in the gallery please hold your applause until I have named them all. Chief Benz Hoyle, chief of police for the town of Cornelius and president of the North Carolina association of chief's of police. Clerk Archie Smith, clerk of superior court.
of Durham County and President of the North Carolina Conference of Clerks of Superior Court. Kimmel McDiarmid, official court reporter for district 15B, Orange and Chatham Counties, and President of the North Carolina Association of Official Court Reporters. District Attorney Andrew Murry, for the 26th Judicial Prosecutorial District and President-elect of the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys. Judge Robert Rader, Chief District Court Judge for the 10th Judicial District, Wake County, and past President of the North Carolina Conference of District Court Judges. Magistrate Rudy Locklear, Magistrate for District 16B, Robeson County, and the Magistrate Representative on the State Judicial Council. Sheriff Asa Buck, Carteret County Sheriff and President of the North Carolina Sheriff's Association and I'm pleased to share that we have a number of other Sheriff's here today as well. Judge Osmond Smith, Senior Resident Superior Court Judge for District 9A, Person and Caswell Counties and President of the Conference of Superior Court Judges. Catharine Arrowood, President of the North Carolina Bar Association, and Ron Gibson, President of the North Carolina State Bar. Finally, would all those here today who are currently working in our justice system please stand so that we can recognize you and please join me in thanking these justice system leaders for all of their hard work. [APPLAUSE] And finally, I especially want to recognize my wife, Kim, and daughter Susanna. [APPLAUSE] It is my distinct privilege to renew the tradition of reporting to you on the state of the judicial branch of state government. It is particularly meaningful to renew this tradition this year, when we celebrate the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta. Now, as Speaker Pro Tem Stam has so soften reminded this body, Magna Carta is foundational to our liberties and form of government as it was the first governing document to place limits on the power of the English King. You see, in Europe, at the time of our countries' independence, judges typically remained in office only if their rulings pleased the crown. Our founders saw the need for an independent judiciary, a judiciary not left to the control of a monarch, but instead a separate and equal branch of government, accountable to the people as expressed int heir constitution. The founders recognized that the judicial branch's solemn duty to preserve the rule of law was best achieved in this way. And so, on this special occasion, I am reminded of our generation's stewardship of this sacred duty of government, preserving justice for all. Earlier this morning, thousands of school children across our great state pledged allegiance to the flag and recited the words "with liberty and justice for all." Those same children are learning and we hope they are paying attention, that our state has three co-equal branches of government. The legislative branch, which is responsible for making our laws. The executive branch, which is responsible for executing those laws. And the judicial branch, which resolves disputes arising under those laws. And for the judicial branch, ensuring justice for all is the most important thing that we do. The judicial branch comprises more than 6,000 public servants. Our unified court system includes seven supreme court justices,
Fifteen court of appeals judges one hundred and twelve superior court judges two hundred and seventy district court judges. One hundred clerics of court and many of our clerics are with us today and forty four district attorneys. The administrative office of the courts provides our elected judges, clerics, prosecutors and courthouse personnel with assistance in personnel management and compensation. Purchase and delivery of equipment and technology systems and specialized judicial and staff training. In states without a unified court system these jobs are duplicated in every local jurisdiction. The judicial branch handles just under three million, yes, three million cases each year. We are grateful for the support that the general assembly has graciously shown our justice system. This general assembly's recent business court modernization act is an excellent example. We know that as stable and predictable legal system is a key driver of economic development in a globally competitive market place. As this general assembly has wisely recognized strong courts our good for business. Likewise in two thousand eleven this general assembly passed the Justice Reinvestment Act. That legislation was designed to improve public safety and conserve resources. By enacting the Justice Reinvestment Act the general assembly has safeguarded public resources while investing in programs that decrease crime per five ? mental health treatment and strengthen our communities. In both of these examples the general assembly has partnered with the judicial branch and other stakeholders to ensure the fair and impartial administration of justice. We all know that lack of business the administrative operations of the judicial branch must be run efficiently in order to be effective. We understand this and we fully appreciate that in partnering with this legislative branch. The judicial branch must be a good steward of it's resources. I want to take a moment to tell you about the justice systems efforts in promoting savings in recent years. When the Great Recession began nearly eight years ago, it placed tremendous strain and pressure upon the general assembly to keep the budget balanced. Like the executive branch and the legislative branch, the judicial branch did it's part. Our operations budget has been reduced significantly. As has our budget for personnel. However even before the start of the great recession in two thousand seven, North Carolina ranked forty ninth out of fifty states in terms of per capita spending on the judicial branch. Five years later in two thousand and twelve we ranked forty fifth out of fifty states using the same source data as corroborated by the highly respected national center for state courts. We have eliminated positions and currently have workforce deficits in courthouses across our state. Under the metrics used by the National center for state courts, our judicial branch is now understaffed by five hundred and thirty six positions. That is approximately nine percent of our workforce. It is clear that we are asking our justice system employees to do more with less. Our dedicated judicial branch staff has picked up the slack from these vacancies , while their own families finances are still feeling the strain of economic hardship. I am told that assistant clerics and court employees are taking second and even third jobs to make ends meet. Magistrates and assistant clerics of court pitched in to help each other when they didn't have enough staff to get the work done. Deputy sheriffs and security guards also lent a hand while vigilantly protecting our courthouse from those who would do us harm. Judicial officials and employees across our great state have carried out countless acts of diligence and compassion and hardwork that so often went unpublicized during these challenging economic times. We will continue to do our part to manage expenses. In response to the recession, not only did we lower expenditures through workforce reductions. We also re engineered our operations to capture inefficiencies, for example, we improved our centralized procurement system for statewide supply purchases and deliveries to generate three hundred and fifty thousand...
As in dollars in annual cost savings and sees as a seventh the administrative office of records move to a beast from Marshall office facility prior to this the was scattered in seven different locations in 2009 (SPEAKER CHANGES) with this legislators for was able to buy this property during a recession the same as the celery save taxpayers $30,000,000 over the life of the lease that was in place of death, we as effectively use that knowledge integrated operational efficiencies specifically we have lost when technologies and database systems to communicate with outlays to artists traded among all 100 counties throughout the state when the solutions are also used to recruit employees provide mandatory training new employee orientation and midsize national business said Tuesday (SPEAKER CHANGES) that it has online we are continuing our efforts to find efficiencies in these areas now none of the week of cost fight efficiencies and a mount Everest get insurance as we continue to find innovative ways to tell our mandate to deliver justice for instance we now have two veteran street networks serving vows to have any advice to protect your free governor of light we're all very pleased to have a positive comments in your state in the state address about our veterans who works in a hornet in Cumberland County is his son as a service may soon find themselves involved with the legal system for minor offenses and veterans horseplay of one of the holding of Indians to use the packet rehabilitation instead of recidivism insurance if these must be sure that many women across the state to assign the country have the resources they need to thrive as civilians best guess of the chorus set as a veteran sports enable us to do more with less a lawmaker of his family works now Health Works and sobriety for its Allies as if the courts have enabled to usual and personnel to administer large numbers of cases while ensuring that the polling places and held the receiving end of a need for example in 1999 the first family courts were established by his general assembly noun family words are operating in a forest of the state provide a defective case management to almost half of our state's citizens in the eighties, and the domestic case in a family: history on December 30 worst 2014 was 113 (SPEAKER CHANGES) days as an heir to 319 days and not a family court district family has farmed salmon of specialty course they're working to process cases through the court system as a nap while helping to bring closure and stability to families of this and a mainstay on the offer another one example of efficiency through innovation that it is a mystery offers a unique option for domestic violence victims data electronically filed for protection for an apple and IBM hearing when a judge offered a safe and secure location protective orders and a satellite slightly to the Sierra for service on the ways user does not yet has online to national public sector innovation awards if medicine is across our state are also using one of the ads acknowledging to save time and cost reduced to a search warrants for providing the visual appearance to benefit for best-selling these expenses require on for some officers and minimal defendants to appear in person before magistrate now over 100 law enforcement agencies in more than 40 counties are using this technology to facilitate these proceedings a lot less than officers made and alive and search warrants using a laptop..............
[SPEAKER CHANGES] In their patrol vehicle. If the search warrant is approved, it can be processed electronically in the NCAWARE system and the search can proceed. In rural counties where a magistrate is on call for a 24 hour shift, this technology may eliminate the need for travel to a courthouse. Investments in this type of technology pay off many times over, especially for law enforcement officers who have more time to ensure the safety of our communities. Now an initiative that we will soon be undertaking involves civics education. Our citizens must understand the vital role that courts perform in protecting our democracy. This dialogue must begin in our schools with our youngest citizens. Thus I have asked two of my colleagues on the Supreme Court to work with the State Board of Education and the Department of Public Instruction to enhance our state civics education curriculum. In addition, we will develop a speakers bureau of judges and citizens who can talk to community groups and school classes aboui the importance of civic values. In order to ensure that young people understand the fundamental principles of our society, this work must continue. As our economy improves, we are also exploring innovative ways to bring out innovation in electronic filing to further invest in the efficient administration of justice. How many of us have children or grandchildren who cannot function without their smartphones? Many of us now fall into that category as well. As a judge at the Court of Appeals, and now as a Justice at the Supreme Court, I have seen firsthand the benefits of technology. We were national leaders when our Supreme Court instituted an electronic filing system almost 20 years ago. Our business courts have also benefitted from e-filing. Recently, our neighbors to the north and to the south, Virginia and South Carolina, began moving forward with statewide e-filing in their trial courts. Now we are developing a master plan for instituting e-filing statewide. In order to innovate in a prudent manner, we will prepare a strategic action plan outlining how to implement e-filing and virtual courtroom technology in all 100 county courthouses. We will be deliberate in our approach and our plans will benefit from technological expertise in the private sector, from studying the best practices of other states that have been administering e-filing systems for several years, and from practical insights of the numerous stakeholders within our own system. In sum, we have learned to do more with less. But while these efforts at efficiency and innovation in our justice system have helped ease the crisis, they are not enough. Many of you are business owners and understand that a business cannot bring itself out of the red through efficiencies and innovation alone. It needs investment capital if it is to succeed. The same is true for the judicial branch. We are now approaching a challenging phase in terms of the judicial branch's operational needs. Our operations budget is under tremendous stress and we have been forced to rely on money available from vacant positions to cover basic functions such as payments to jurors, court reporters, and expert witnesses. If we cannot pay for these basic services, we cannot conduct timely trials. The resulting delays erode public trust and confidence in the integrity of the justice system because they impair our ability to promptly apprehend offenders and see that they are tried and appropriately sentenced. We all know that justice that is delayed is justice that has been denied and we are now confronting a situation where the justice system is unable to promptly serve those who turn to us for help. The justice system is in many ways a complex chain. And we all know that a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. In order to bring a felony criminal to
case to trial, among other things, a grand jury indictment must be returned, and often times lab results must be obtained. I am told that delays of more than a year have become the norm, rather than the exception, for lab results of blood alcohol tests in DUI cases and DNA analysis in serious felony cases. These delays undermine the ability of our criminal justice system to deter crime and to do justice. Even when cases proceed after these delays, many never go to trial because defendants enter into agreements with the state where the defendant pleads guilty to a lesser defense in order for the state to avoid expenses associated with trials. Especially when resources are limited, this strategy allows prosecutors to cope with their heavy caseloads. Now in many instances, these agreements are perfectly legitimate, but never let it be said that because of inadequate resources, our prosecutors were forced into doing this. Now, if a case makes it to trial, a jury has to be selected and a court reporter scheduled. And I am not aware of any current technology that can replace the role of our court reporters in these serious cases. Defendants who are found guilty can appeal to the court of appeals and also seek further review in our Supreme Court. There are many steps in the process from the time a criminal defendant is arrested until the time that the case is finally resolved. The entire system must work correctly from start to finish and this requires adequate resources. Our state constitution guarantees that courts shall be opened and that justice shall be administered without delay. Think about what it will mean if the people of this great state can not reply upon us to promptly administer justice. How can we explain that to the victims of violent crime and their families? How can we explain that to the small business owners who need a contract dispute resolved in order to keep their store open and avoid bankruptcy? How can we explain that to the family that lost a loved one because of a drunk driver? We must be able to provide them justice. In order to do this, we need the help of this General Assembly. We all know how important education is to the progress of this great state. By way of illustration, one county's annual budget for the public school system in fiscal year 2014-2015 is nearly 1.5 billion dollars. The entire justice system budget for all one hundred counties is only 464 million dollars. This means that the entire judicial branch budget is less than 1/3 of the Weight county public school system's budget. The funding related problems that we are now facing have been decades in the making. It is not the fault of any particular General Assembly. Over the past 25 years, our state's commitment to the judiciary has not exceeded 3% of the state budget. That's less than 3% for a coequal branch of government. If we are to right this ship, the judicial branch will need sufficient investment from this General Assembly to ensure that we adequately fund the basic operations of our court system, provide modest pay increases for our personnel, and move forward with critical technology infrastructure to support the rapidly increasing demands on our county courthouses across the state. I look forward to working with the General Assembly on the details of this budgetary request. As I have mentioned by way of earlier examples, the judicial branch will be a good steward of this investment. Indeed, to further our accountability to this body and to the general public, this spring I will convene a multi-disciplinary commission to undertake a comprehensive evaluation of our justice system, and to make recommendations for how we can strengthen our courts within the existing administrative framework. We will be inviting participation from the General Assembly. The commission will also include key leaders from the private sector and stakeholders from within our justice system. This multi-disciplinary commission will
Since a season or messages and Lance's Ceres's night of resources and make recommendations from making strides in artworks to the greatest extent possible to re engineering and capture inefficiencies licensed in a museum of the commission will be available for the start of the 2071 session and that number by a rundown to assess the general assembly in its efforts to ensure the integrity of our justice system down, they win our time service will be over by light is better than will be a part of history (SPEAKER CHANGES) I know he'll be many achievements always moving around and for which we will be remembered my ancestors a device so that we would have the benefit of the past justice system in the world last word in the other to reassure get media buyer or not we see our community safe and that we preserve the integrity of the horse thank you again for inviting me to see review today and see just as to whether a state of the judiciary address is important for vision for North Carolina and I have learned about wearing with his general assembly to ensure that our justice system has the resources to ensure justice for all day today must be made on mesa lead less mistakenly allowed if if some lives in a season-highs(SPEAKER CHANGES) this isn't just have the same half dozen Virginia's recognize the seven on Levine joins us in been at his offices of this memo in the senate the senate and the owners must sign of 2015 at 11:00 AM seven and seven by state and the sensational exams and hasn't even this is a non-van Nuys Edison says is an assigned to the masses foreman is a season has to make amends as they must have at the times of-the national and as of as a stand in recess to reconvene in fast as I have 1/2 season ends as if the Ben Ben Ben Bennett Ben Ben Bennett balloon as if halflife at................
[SPEAKER CHANGES] Senate Bill 20, the clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Senators Rabin, Rucho and Tillman, Senate Bill 20, a bill to be entitled An Act to Update the Reference to the Internal Revenue Code to decouple from certain provisions of the Federal Tax Increase Provision Act of 2014 to modify the motor fuel tax rate, and to make certain reductions within the Department of Transportation for the 2014-2015 fiscal year, General Assembly for North Carolina enacts. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For our purpose, that is the gentleman from Mecklenburg. Representative Brawley rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To explain the bill Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, and I would like to say first of all to the members that I am aware that the Flavors of Carolina has already started at the North Raleigh Hilton and that the Restaurant Association of Big Ed's and the Greater Raleigh Chamber at the Museum of History are coming up at 5:30, and I am completly cognizant that I am the only thing that stands between you and dinner. This is partially the IRC Update Bill, which was passed out of the Revenue Law Study Committee and introduced in both houses. It addressed whether or not we would conform to changes in the Internal Revenue Service, or we would decouple for the coming year. As to the increase, Section 179 Expensing Limits, we once again have decoupled, which will not prevent businesses from recovering investment costs, but will not allow them to do it all in one year. It would have cost the budget $52 million in tax had we not done so. We have conformed to a deduction increase of $250 for a classroom teacher for classroom expenses where they buy supplies for their classroom from their own funds. We have not conformed for a deduction for tuition expenses. The original bill did not conform on an exclusion from income from cancellation of debt on a principal residence, but that was changed by PCS in committee, so now we are conforming with the federal government on that issue. The two other issues were deduction for home mortgage insurance premiums and an exemption from tax on tax-free distribution from IRAs to public charities. So it's essentially with that single change for the recognition of mortgage forgiveness as revenue being no longer taxed in North Carolina. Essentially the bill that has passed out of the Revenue Laws Subcommittee. In addition, there is an issue addressing the gas tax in North Carolina and trransportation revenue. The bill that came over from the Senate was complicated with a formula. It is being very simplified, and that I believe is where we will have most of our discussions today. As you know, this body in 2013 addressed a difficult situaion we had with the way that we allocated road money and decided which roads to build in North Carolina. We worked together as a body across the aisle, and we came up with a solution which has become a standard for the entire country and was passed with overwhelming votes in this body and in the Senate. That was a situation where I sometimes say we were performing hip replacement surgery on transportation. This year we have a crisis and it is brought on by a delightfully ironic situation. We have tied our revenue for transportation to a volatile, internationally traded commodity, and in the current market environment it has crashed. Because of that, the potential revenue has crashed with it, and it has created a situation where we are not dealing with hip replacement surgery. We actually have a patient in the emergency room and we're trying to stabilize the patient so that we can put in the stents after the heart attack. The house PCS would fix the gas tax at 36 cents a gallon beginning April 1. This is in response to a forecast that, under the formula the gas tax
Would drop to approximately 30 cents a gallon on July 1, 2015. The impact of a 7.4 cent reduction in gas tax on transportation revenues in North Carolina would be severe. I have had placed at each of your places information given to me by the league of municipalities and by the North Carolina Department of Transportation. Rather than read all of the impacts, I'll just talk about the impact in my own district. The two small towns that are the primary municipalities in my district, Matthews and Mint Hill will lose $289,000 in power bill money if this cut takes place. I have a little bit of the city of Charlotte, and I am sometimes accused of being less than cordial to the city of Charlotte, but the city of Charlotte would lose $4,050,000 in power bill money in the coming year. Mecklenburg county would receive $37 million less in maintenance money, paving, fixing potholes, if the gas tax falls to 30 cents. It is a difficult situation to face, and I think it has to be addressed. What this bill proposes to do is to stabilize revenue through the end of the year by setting the gas tax at 36 cents a gallon, which is slightly lower than the 37 and a half cents that it is now, and it greatly reduces the tax cut that would occur on July 1 of 2015. So rather than falling by 7 and a half cents, it would have only fallen by one and a half cents. That will allow us, this body, all of us, the time to work with the Senate and create a better answer for how we are going to fund transportation in the coming years. The method that we have used to determine our transportation priorities has changed after 30 years because it needed to. The method in which we finance road construction needs to change for the same reason. We cannot do this in two weeks and have the full discussion and debate that we had on the previous transportation bill. So what I am asking that we do is address this issue with a fix, a patch if you will, to give us the time to work through this and come up with a bipartisan solution that will have broad support in both bodies that can change the way we fund transportation in North Carolina in a way that will make us once again the good roads state. If we choose to vote this down today, absent another bill to address the same issue, some of the cities will have to raise their property taxes on July 1 to maintain their roads, and we will hear quite a lot of complaints about the maintenance that will no longer be done. What this bill addresses is a simple, unpleasant choice that we have to make. We can allow the gas tax to drop seven and a half cents on July 1, 2015, or we can fix the potholes and pave the roads. We have to choose. We can't have both. And I ask for your support that this body can once again come together and do the right thing for North Carolina. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Hanover, Representative Catlin arise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you mister speaker. To file an amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to offer the amendment. The clerk will read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Catlin moves to amend the bill on page two, lines 42 through 49 by rewriting the lines to read. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to debate the amendment.
Thank you. When I looked at this on the IRA part of it, there's a provision that will take away the tax deductions for our senior citizens that are 70 1/2 old and up, so I want to tell you a little bit about that. This amendment takes away that exemption. There's a potential tax increase in the bill, as it is now for senior citizens over 70 1/2 years old. This is not conforming with the IRA charitable roll over that the feds have. The provision in senate bill 20 would decouple the extension from tax free contributions from IRA's to public charities, the IRA charitable roll over, and they have unintended consequences for some donors to churches and other charitable organization and non-profits. Specifically that provision creates a significant tax increase for some retired 70 1/2 year old North Carolina citizens who make charitable contributions from their IRA, so to be fair to them . . . Well, let me say something else is, according to staff one of our goals in a IRC update is to maintain conformability with the federal tax law, which simplifies tax regulations. Because, a tax payer will not need to account for different federal and state treatments of the same asset, and its my understand that the provision that is in this bill is not in conformance with the federal extension. They extended it one more year, so this amendment extends it for one more year in line with the federal government and I ask for your support. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Graham of Robeson, are you wanting to debate the amendment before us? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Not at this time, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Further discussion or debate on the amendment? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Blust, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] If Representative Catlin will yield for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Will you yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I'll try. [SPEAKER CHANGE] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Catlin, do you know the fiscal effect of this amendment? How much revenue would this potentially cost us? [SPEAKER CHANGE] Yes, sir. I'm sorry I didn't mention that. Its $1 million dollars. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Representative Brawley of Mecklenburg is recognized to speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the gentleman's interest. I think there is some misunderstanding on the impact of this provision. Normally, distribution from an IRA is taxable, the federal government is saying that they will not tax the distribution from the IRA. What's being ignored is when the IRA becomes a charitable contribution that is a tax deduction for the tax payer, so they are already receiving a tax deduction for the contribution, but they are paying the distribution tax that they would normally receive from getting the distribution. This particular thing for 70 1/2 is something that the federal government is doing, by example if you earn money its taxable income to you for the portion of it that you donate to a charity. It is not as if you are taxed on money that you gave to the charity, your taxes are still reduced by the deduction. What this would do is eliminate the fee for the distribution, which the tax payers would pay and then still give them the deduction for the donation to the charity to the maximal extent allowable by law. Having said that, the effect impact budget is about $1 million, but the reason we did not concur with the IRS was for that reason. There was a tax benefit that accrues even paying the tax on the distribution. [SPEAKER CHANGE] For what purpose does the lady from Wake, Representative Holley rise? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I've got a question for the bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGE] Does the bill sponsor yield? [SPEAKER CHANGE] I do. [SPEAKER CHANGE] He yields. [SPEAKER CHANGE] I want to make sure that I understand this, because the way I read this was differently. I read that once we make a donation out of our IRA to a charitable contribution that we still have to pay taxes on that money
that came out of IRA. Am I not right? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes, you do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] And that’s the money that the state is charging us taxes on that money, that normally if we made that charitable contribution, if we made a charitable contribution, we wouldn’t be paying any taxes on it, so we’re actually taxing a charitable contribution. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You still get the reduction for the charitable contribution. You get charged the tax on the distribution from the IRA; that is correct. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I still have a problem with this. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yeah, I don’t think anybody understands it, really. There’s a lot of confusion and it’s in the weeds, and that’s why I really don’t want to fight over this in a big way. It’s not a huge issue, but the deal is you are charged a tax on a distribution from an IRA. If you donate that money to charity, you get a deduction for the donation. What the federal government did, and I make a lot of nonprofits like this, is they said “Well we’re not going to charge a distribution tax on an IRA distribution if you are distributing it directly to a charitable organization. That’s all we decoupled for. If you make a distribution from your IRA to yourself, it’s still going to be taxable. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Pendleton rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, may I talk to him about this provision? [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to debate the bill, and at the conclusion if you want to ask him a question, that would be fine. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I just want to make a comment because I’m in that line of work. You’re using pretax dollars. You have escaped income tax on any type of qualified investment, so you do not get a reduction. What you are getting is you’re able to give that money to charity and get the money out of the IRA without paying income tax when it comes out, but you do not get a reduction. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does Representative Glazier rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Brawley would yield for a question, please. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Will he yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He does. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Thank you, Representative, and I think I understand. I thought you did a pretty good job, and with Representative Pendleton as well, but I want to make sure I understand. What was the federal change that we’re decoupling from? That is, what would they have done that we’re decoupling from? Just so I understand that. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The federal government would not charge a tax on the distribution, and it would go directly to the charity. What we have done, and I’ve actually… I questioned my understanding with Trina Griffin and got the answer back. They will pay a tax for the distribution, but then for taxable year 2014, “a taxpayer who elected to take the income exclusion under Section 108-D8 of the code for qualified charitable distribution from an individual retirement plan to a person who has attained the age of 70 and a 1/2, may deduct the amount that would have been allowed as a charitable deduction under Section 170 of the code, had the taxpayer not elected the income solution,” which basically says you pay tax on the money, you get a deduction for the contribution.” [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate on the amendment? Representative Insko of Orange, for what purpose do you rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To have a brief conversation with Representative Brawley. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You are recognized to debate the bill and conclude with a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Brawley, do I have this right? I have made a charitable contribution from IRA to my church. It just went through and it happened. I didn’t get the money, and I would say I got the tax deduction because I didn’t pay taxes on it. So my tax accountant… the law changed; my tax accountant said “Stop this. Go ahead and get the distribution and make your contribution,” so I’m doing that now. I make my IRA distribution, and I’m taking the money out that I would have given to the church and giving it to the church. Is there any difference in what I used to do and what I’m doing now? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well the difference that the accountant explained to you is really the difference. Now yes, it is taxable to you if you take the distribution, and then you get the deduction for the donation to the charity. That was the intention of the bill that I’m opposing… or I’m not going to vote for the amendment. I’m opposing the amendment, but my opposition on this is very slight because it’s just… yeah.
And his as I know this is not one-fifth of this indicator of one of few rise to as the resident and a friendly clash of the stresses that when you can assign this to us at Venice most people in this chamber now live in South Carolina is where he is a sign of the air and identity of the other members in this chamber and from there the move because low heat please explain because many gotten off and fees not disseminate actually goes back a plan that is the firewall was if you're a senior citizen can you beat a team called him an Macintosh and a contribution to the charge the government and state tax, a contribution end of this bill does is it expires the console that you can have to make a tax haven: contribution in over 70 save a few years before us toward the end of the tentative and haven't they said no one ever do that one of the seven away with an extended for another year in some of this amendment as his extensive in line with the Federal government's only when the two other 70 end of a human to contribution to the Georgia dome and Tax and contribution to the issue was more of a face off Israel as for a second time when even the house and state, the com pany says that if you don't have as many as you can have a gun faxes so that Indians and Pakistanis despite U.S. is head of a valley income taxes of cash to pay no state taxes you kind of activity adoption (SPEAKER CHANGES) occasions that he doubted that money agent of the eye of the entire that made it so he cannot enter text of his 70, as he was ousted in favor of the case, house-in favor of guys went to the following a discussion of the data on the amendment is not a question for the masses Enoch Simmons a man and one of the senate at one of the Asians and the has-been the top one-machine of the statement is a scene in that event be as of Monday night in Denver 70 all amendment is about , for what purposes rested by Emma Thompson ries sent out a minor mistake of the doubt that send mail mod look at the amendment main cause of a city clerk in the rules here is my opinion that it is not an item below the satellite the IOC updates for gas tax for many of the things which it would be germane but not his real as of Monday of the top of this year as (SPEAKER CHANGES) his speed on the US Iowa State in those amounts of middle of the session for Metzenbaum leave out of his bail and of the event, the agency to what only thing that is the loses a tax increase is a tax increase in the consumers in North Carolina for your constituents and that's what we need on the same without is that the gas tax loss of 30¢ was this the Systems 6¢ so overheated everyone you can say shows is buying as it sits as more down to simple and understand the average consumer is a 1286¢ a gallon of gas cans with Disney S blazes a tax increase in everything but am I need to think about-systems have a feeling that this is a promise in the face of it is no guarantee the facts which do now is in 6¢ more per gallon from a decision for the average of less consumer taxes(SPEAKER CHANGES) up 6¢ a gallon tank events on the incident, but of Bridget Jones walked over to U.S. citizen and a correct as simple as human faces a speaker, but if we didn't even make...........
Representative Jones moves to amend the bill on page 4, line 2, by deleting the word “September” and substituting the word “June”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Ladies and gentlemen, what this amendment would do, and I think it makes a lot of sense for several reasons, it will put the base period for calculating the tax on the same calendar as our fiscal year, which ends June the 30th. One of the things we learned from staff in the Finance Committee was that currently the figures that are needed to do that are not available on March 31st when the current base period ends. I would just note that this bill, this legislation, calls for a rate change on April the 1st when they would go to a flat, this year, 36 cents, so this would put the next rate change in six months, which would be October the 1st, rather than waiting until January 1st, 2016. I will just say that we just heard one of the arguments. This is going to be spun, as we know, all kinds of ways. Some people are going to say it’s a lowering of the tax. Some people are going to say it’s a raising of the tax after July the 1st because it would be lower if we didn’t do anything. One thing I will point out is that one of the effects of what this does is to say that yes, April 1st through July 1st, we are going to have a lower rate than we would if we do nothing, which is three months, and then for three months afterwards rather than six months, yes, the rate would be higher than it would be otherwise if we did nothing, so that’s just one more way of explaining that, but I do think it makes sense to do this and I would urge your support. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion or debate? Representative Brawley of Mecklenburg is recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We’re under a pretty tight deadline under the bill as it currently is written. This amendment was discussed quite vigorously in committee and was defeated. I would ask that you defeat it again. We will have our hands full solving this problem, and to arbitrarily cut the time I don’t think makes sense. Please vote “no”. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jones, do you desire recognition of debate a second time? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Yes sir, I do. [SPEAKER CHANGES] You’re recognized. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well there are a couple of things I didn’t point out because I wasn’t aware my friend was going to stand up and oppose it, but since he did, let me just then point this out: As it currently stands, the change would be made at January 1st next year. Frankly I wanted to give us time to fix this thing, but I don’t really want to be here next fall doing it, so I don’t necessarily think we need to incentivize that plan. I think most of us here would kind of like to get out this summer, so if we move it to October 1st and we fix this thing by the summer, there’s still plenty of time to implement it. So that was another reason, quite frankly, is to put the feat to the fire a little bit to fix this problem by sometime this summer, rather than saying we have this fall to do it, so I do think this gives time. This is a temporary bridge, as you know, but I think this bridge is long enough, so again, I would urge your support in spite of my good friend’s opposition, so thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Jordan of Ash is recognized to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Inquiry of bill sponsor. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does he yield? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yield. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, Representative Brawley. You very quickly gave an argument against the amendment, but can you give me some more information about how we’ve come to this emergency, this crisis that’s happened and the tight timeframe that we’re in so that we can understand? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well I don’t know that I can explain the instability in the local or the global markets for gasoline, which is the real key factor on this. Even at the high prices that gasoline has been charged recently, it has been a decreasing source of revenue because of the number of vehicles that get much higher gas mileage, the number of vehicles that do not burn gasoline, so that even at a higher price, both for gasoline and a higher gas tax, the revenue contribution has been decreasing. Now due to whatever reasons, gas prices have cratered. Personally I love it because the gas price is so low, but we are facing the potential of losing about 20% of our motor fuels revenue through this market which is based on an extremely volatile
Sign a cease-and-a society has informally in the U.S. as a value from caucuses, firemen and from 71 which would doom , (SPEAKER CHANGES)actually continue the current tax rate until July 1 when I cut the fiscal but the figure they gave me was somewhere between 40 and 50,000,000 on the annualized basis for every penny the two went through a site estimate from April 1 through July 1 if we can't go along with the bill never left league sacrificing about $13,000,000 for the benefits they were in the tax cut so I have descended into 9393 era preserve jobs is looking at the home you're looking producing Mana Michael Vick $1415 million not 100 m and five million witnesses hundred if either of you talk to anticipating reviews of the Canadian look into how much money the impact would be home because after all the purpose of the bill as I understand it is to contact the revenue that would reduce it went down to 29¢ for the current update the bus of the bill is to stabilize revenue of 46¢ per gallon through the end of the year in this body a chance to all deal with the issue revenue of one, give an answer of choices (SPEAKER CHANGES)that could've been made some of them were made simply recalls there was a broad base behind a number of some people were happy with 37 1/2 we know the senate was happy with the 435 and a convoluted formula that could come in later the situation is stop the bleeding and give us the chance to fix the problem may issue Betsy and 10 and so I can't really address all the possible permutations that we could then the question is when my teacher was remodeled it can we go live with it we think we came west go forward and do something, I think you know that I've frequently will pay a fee: George Patton have a right quite a bit bland today is better than the right plan tomorrow when its place the issue remove four mistaken for whatever says the java man rise just a comment on the government Magellan has afforded a human colleagues do a stabilizing the young tax rate he can stabilize it when it drops to 29 because it'll be six months long before you have adjusted again so it is about money in my opinion if we pass vehicle name and phone represent jars were looking at the reduction of about 20013150000000dollars as my point is some stabilization can occur any any price so pointed to pay this was in the formations bill simply take a 35¢ so my point is that represents U.S. is a man that represents a revenue reduction of about two of 13 of $15,000,000 to some consider Baker well, says the Denver rocky cameras and jobs rose as high as 81 question does the gentleman from rolling hills of the java from Rockingham is that yields item as a Monday understand it, but as a ball is presenting this deal was basically it simply raise bet there's really not the NT and it died instantly nine CNC they wanted to do in the long , playing in net, and that's the reason may be all night to diversity and have an answer of what the league and am now think it would outside influence on the folly when they do you understand it said the deal is in CDs in for a graceful USA air absolutely this Sunday night as a misconception that I've heard several data several times are less the blaze this is not a phase two the funding problem , that we have been in transportation and these are we ever saw me some long-term basis of a destabilizing overhears you have a summaries over Jackson ran the visual different tacks on the set that aside while we move on, either as a revenue stream to be identified and stamina my point is back to your amendment (SPEAKER CHANGES) if you wanna reduce the time for stabilizing the tax rate 35¢ Of them January 1, 2 October 1 gets the benefits of the service stabilizes, result in revenue loss of about $1350 million on a ..........................
I’m not criticizing your comment or advising people to vote or encouraging people to vote one way or the other. You vote your conscience on it, but I’m just trying to establish the fact that other than moving the date, there’s a fiscal impact on it. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Northampton, Representative Wray rise? For what purpose does the gentleman Person, Representative Yarborough rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] We need to cut the gas tax to match the other southern states, to stay competitive, but we can’t do it right now because we won’t have any money to pave roads this summer. The gas tax is not working to meet the needs of our state, and we must find a way to six it permanently. Representative Jones’ deadline for fixing this problem is more realistic than January 1st. If this problem is not fixed by October, I don’t believe that it will be fixed, and we will have failed our state. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Stam rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I ask you to vote “no” on the amendment. First I have a mathematical disagreement with Representative Warren. I believe the revenue… You can tell this from the fiscal note. The revenue loss would be about 50 plus million because 6 cents decrease is 4 and a ½ times as much as a 1 and a ½ cent increase, so it would be about a 50 million loss of revenue, but the reason that it should go to January 1 is because cities and counties, before July 1, have to fix their tax rates, and roads just don’t appear ex nihilo, out of nothing. You have to let contracts… you have to… those contracts have to be mobilized, and essentially, if we don’t extend it to January 1, then the last quarter of the year, there’s not going to be much construction happening on roads, and we just… we don’t need to lose a quarter of the year on our roads. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rowan, Representative Warren rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Mr. Speaker, just to apologize to my colleague Representative Brawley and to… [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentleman is recognized to debate the amendment a second time, I believe. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you, sir. Again, the amendment will have a fiscal impact greater than I had suggested before, probably at least three times greater than what I had suggested. I did not give… the figures I had were based on a 1 cent increment, and I failed to retain the fact that Representative Jones’ amendment is effective for about 5 cents. Is that correct, Representative Brawley? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate? If not, the question before the House is the amendment offered by Representative Jones, amendment A2, to the second reading to the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 20. So many favoring the adoption of the amendment will say “aye”; those opposed will vote “no”. The Clerk will open the vote. The Clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 49 having voted in the affirmative and 68 in the negative, the amendment fails. Now on the main question, further discussion, further debate? For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Jackson rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To briefly speak on the bill, Mr. Speaker. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you very much, and first I want to begin by thanking the bill sponsor for the way he has presented the bill. I believe the Senate tried to pass this off as a gas tax cut, and I think we can all agree that it’s a cut, but only for a couple of months, and so really this is a stabilization or increase in the gas tax, and so I appreciate the way the gentleman from Mecklenburg County has presented the bill today. I do want to say this: It is a 20% tax increase as of July 1st, and that is a minimum tax increase. I am not an oil expert like Representative Brawley; I agree, I don’t know, but I can tell you some really respected economists that I follow think oil is going to go down in the next couple of months, and if that holds true, we could be looking at a gas tax increase on July 1st which is 40% increase as opposed to the 20% that everyone agrees to, so I hope you’ll remember that. I shared just a short story in our caucus today, and I hope you will consider it as well.
Think about the number of times in the last five years you have stopped to get gas, and the person that was at that pump before you got three dollars worth, or four dollars worth, or five dollars worth. At where I live, you see that all the time. This is a significant tax increase for the people that are buying three dollars of gas (at a time? Very muddled) . I hope you'll consider voting no. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the lady from New Hanover, Representative Hamilton rise. [SPEAKER CHANGES] To discuss my proposed amendment. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The lady's amend would be at… The lady may debate the bill, but not the amendment. I understand the lady may want to send the amendment tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That is correct. Just wanted for the record to say that I'd be bringing the amendment tomorrow. [SPEAKER CHANGES] That would be fine. For what purpose does the gentlemen from Robeson, Representative Graham rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] The Gentlemen has the floor to debate the bill [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and members. You know you don't have an opportunity to hear from Representative Graham too often in this chamber, but when I do speak, I speak with some passion behind my thoughts. I'm concerned about this bill for one reason, and I think many of you should have the same concern I have. You.. were elected to come and represent the best interest of our citizens. We are obviously coming out of a tough time with the recession, or the economic downturn, but now we're looking at the potential of putting another burden on our citizens, whether it's now or in the future, it's still a burden. As you know, in my district and your district, we have low income earners, we have working poor, we have families that are making ends meet from week to week, and now we're talking about putting a burden on them at the pump. A commodity that they need to make a living. That's gas. That's gas. Low income workers spend a larger percentage of their time commuting to work. In my district, you know, someone can travel 15 20 mile one way to get to a job that's not paying, you know, 10 or 15 dollars an hour, might be making 9 dollars an hour, might be making 8.50. And they're going to...They're willing spend that travel time getting to that job to take care of their families, and to take care of their children. On the other hand, our wealthiest families and constituents in this state, that's not an issue with them. That's not an issue with them. They don't mind that drive. It's nothing. Doesn't affect their bottom line. But this is a, this is a, gas tax increase. I don't care how you spend it, or how you look at it, it is an increase. I'm going to… I'm opposed to this. I'm opposed to it because your constituents and my constituents, who work from pay day to pay day, Don’t need this type of increase. The bottom line, it's not necessary. It's not necessary that we make this decision today. There's ample opportunity in this long session, where we debate the budget, we make appropriations to, in my opinion, address this issue. And I do respect that the bill's sponsoring. We had a conversation today and I really am appreciative of his explanation to me of what this means to the constituents I serve. It's a tax increase. And I appreciate our speaker who said the prayer earlier and I just wanted to make a comment on that. Our actions matter. Our actions do matter here. They matter. They matter to the people we represent. We're going to have to answer to … our decisions we make.
We are going to need to answer to decisions we make today. And we just debated a bill that's very important to North Carolina, 117, but if I'm remembering that bill, we're going to give many millions to our airlines as a tax break. I don't understand that. I don't understand the thinking here. I don't understand the thought process. I've been a part of this body now for going into my fifth year, and I've been hearing in the debates on the tax credits, the giveaways to our millionaires, and now I understand we have a billionaire in our state. Think about what we've done in the past that I think that's got us to this position. So I would encourage you, members, to think about your constituents. Think about the people who are driving, getting into their vehicles, going to their jobs, taking care of their families, using this valuable commodity. And now we're saying to them, we're trying to spin this as "you're getting a tax break." No, I'm sorry. It's a tax increase. There's no other way I can see this. It's a tax increase. I would encourage you to think about your constituents, the folks back home, who can't afford this. And let's take our time. This is a Senate bill, this is not a House bill. We can do something in the House. I would encourage you, let's think that way, and I encourage you to not support this bill. Thank you. SPEAKER CHANGES For what purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar, rise? SPEAKER CHANGES To debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES The gentleman from Wake has the floor to debate the bill. SPEAKER CHANGES Mr. Speaker, members of the House, I wasn't going to speak today because I've had a problem with my voice for the last few days, but hallelujah! It's just amazing to me what I'm hearing today. Apparently a number of my friends on the other side of the aisle have suddenly gotten religion on taxes. And I just think that's a wonderful thing. I think that's a wonderful thing, and I hope that bleeds over to now the official position of our friends on the other side of the aisle, is I hope this means that you'll never propose and never campaign and never suggest that we ever raise the sales tax again. Join us in that, join us on this side of the aisle in that position, and that's greatly appreciated. So while you're meditating on that, let me just mention one factor that hasn't--I don't think has been mentioned yet and needs to be mentioned. What is the point of all this? What is the point of what Representative Brawley is talking about when he talks about stabilizing this tax rate? What he's talking about is not simply hundreds of millions of dollars in maintenance of our roads and highways. What he's talking about is the safety of our citizens. Do you really want to put that at risk? We have problems enough as it is with maintaining our roads, which we do at a state level, many of them are highways and roads around the state. We are not certain of what the federal government is going to do with the highway reauthorization later in this year. We’re not assured of that. We need to make sure that as responsible leaders in this state, that we stabilize the funds that we have and we do not put our citizens at risk. That we have the maintenance money there, spot maintenance comes out of these funds, when we're trying to make improvements in dangerous crossways and dangerous intersections, and bridges that we've been working on for the last several years to replace. We cannot afford to drop behind in the progress that we have made as a state, that's been recognized nationally over the last several years. We've been one of the leaders in the country in increasing funds in the last several years into our transportation system to deal with capacity issues and to deal with safety issues. Don't put your citizens, your families at risk. Please vote for this bill.
CUOSGS [0:00:00.0] For what purpose does the gentleman from Durham, Representative Hall raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To speak on the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker and I too wanna make sure that adequate praise is given, I think it’s been a love for Representative Brawley here this evening. So I hope he is getting this recorded but everyone has a complement him on the fact he has given effectual representation in finance and in appropriations of the fact that this is a tax increase, he is well understand it and say it, he said it several times on the record and he did say, “This is a tax increase.” So those of us who were in both meetings have to congratulate him on his wiliness to come forward and admit that but one of the things, it seems we have got a false construct going on here and that is we can only pay for any transportation improvements from the gas tax or maintenance from the gas tax that’s not the limitation we have in a constitution and we have on many occasions supplemented work and done things to ensure we could make sure we had a good transportation system. So we keep treating this as if we can’t pay for this any other way we must have this one single source of revenue to pay for any emergency as it’s been termed in our road maintenance or road construction. So that is not the case and I don’t want us to have this discussion for the public and folks who listen and who think if we have an emergency and we deem it to be such then we can’t dedicate the funds for it. So if it is an emergency and it is about safety we have that ability. Also, I appreciate Representative Brawley making the concession that the way we got here was a misreading or a miscalculation of where we would be financially and this becomes important because we have got a lot of towns and cities that we say we are worried about who want to be able to plan improperly their budgets, but we know we took millions of dollars from our towns and cities last year and legislation we pay us to take away their ability to raise funds. So we are gonna have to be kinda consistent, we have kind of created this emergency in the way we took away from towns and cities their ability to have revenue sources. Now, we are saying it’s an emergency for them to have their roads to be able to be repaired but we created that. The other question is—can we afford this? We don’t have the Governor’s budget yet, I’m not sure what budget would based on this on about what we can afford, it’s maybe put in the cart before the horse to constituent says, “The Governor suppose to submit us what his proposal is to meet all of the states needs.” We don’t have that yet, if we do someone been holding it in back and we like to see that. So what I’m saying is this is not the answer, this is not the solution everybody agrees on that, this is an opportunity to find and work on a solution which we have had for the last few years, we knew this was coming, it’s been coming, it’s not new, even Representative Brawley would say, as his work in transportation last year this was known to be coming, this is not something new. So I understand people’s comments to say, “Why are we in this situation we knew it was coming.” So this is not new, the question is—Are we gonna do what's necessary to solve this transportation problem? We can keep creating false deadlines and drop dates etcetera and then bailing our sales out every time, we can do that, I mean you have the power to do that but ultimately, I think as Representative Warne and some other folks coming and how we are gonna go ahead and get this solved not how can we push it down the road? How we are gonna get this solved? And this measure does not solve it, everyone agrees, it only creates some implied pressure on us to do what we know we have to do, we know for a long time and we should do it and we have to do it, and we just haven’t got it done. So I would ask you to vote against this bill and come back and let’s solve the problem instead of continuing to kick the cane down the road and create these false impressions of we are in a corner and we can’t make a decision and we can’t discharge our constitutional duty, and the Governor can’t discharge his; we can, we should I would say vote against this and let’s do better than this, it can’t be a House Bill that comes out in response to this or give the Senate something to work with from the house that moves us down the road to solve this problem, not moves us down the road to saying, “We are gonna come up with a way to solve the problem.” Let’s solve the problem. [0:05:00.3] [End of file…]
The latest diseases in this event were in a timely and whatever says the java for Mac, Virginia derives from today to the job has afforded a great deal of dolphin's about this and we're focusing on gas tax and I can get into some magical arguments of what action gas tax tired gas tax reduction in art and gas tax mutual advocates maybe is a decent one element(SPEAKER CHANGES) ID known as you can either taxes on April 15 is no one dies I like my taxes not be alive today by 50 by the immersion young lives possibility is nation of money in bank make sure that the white and his son to jail and a shuttle as two words in a conversation I had not one yesterday shall we cannot unite against acts as many employees and no this many employees and, more sense to do the right day Adventist 91 of them, which begin at DS some tough when the Anaheim (SPEAKER CHANGES) and every television all 120 ms that we believe is down and we will get it done right and melody and Sunday at Dallas innocents that we stop and still have the ban on all sides will get the benefit of three months of which are tax cut before they get that many of the tax increase that I know that's when I moved out of the and I had and we reason to believe that what the citation leaders from a large want to be one of the battle back in a nation of one you can't buy estate taxes-thing about this bill does-stage was set them to Mr. Speaker for the best as the age of Milford (SPEAKER CHANGES) represent loss Friday 17 revealed for question does the job of formatting bond yield to the java from Guilford is ideal Mr. Speaker of the recognize for second in the visited the jail as ready as to debate a bill Dietrich taken of the house so did notice and off shortly ago the finance chairman put on notice for a finance committee(SPEAKER CHANGES) meeting tomorrow to take a house bill 40 which is in our city of a clean down so I think that will take care of refugee nurse main objection to the passengers for what purpose does the job from the revision Chevron's be, in general has afforded a bill he managed to each time the advantage of some of the Indonesian always identical bill is going on for a long time in a prescient missed about congratulating a song being against tax increases that this deal with trains all of them comment on the stadium and I have told me she was 17, I'll wish to tax increases are enacting Unisys 20 of us in this general assembly in session until almost November &Data analyst to a sales of 2% sales tax increases from the espionage department and, says he is so abundant about, going against a tax increase our hope he would be his death of the saint about nine months of the people in getting people that they need not have it takes to get people that they have a message in terms of textbooks and schools international buses in terms of Medicare and temperament and content of another thing that people need and putting theft of programs beginning to funds to pay for those program for the tax increase from a pool of the rest as the senate oversight winners in (SPEAKER CHANGES)Lambert runs as the bill's sponsor questions we does the job from economics and value and the lesson from john Forsythia yields rise of any kind of the season e-mail from, not history and the municipalities that is ticking Jan of this loan loss of revenue from the patio batteries various municipalities it is millions in the.............
These and others as scientists suggest here end of Monday of the meat is down 71 as if they don't get this money did have to raise property taxes lovely if you have the same stories guess(SPEAKER CHANGES) I have bought inventory charter that ad was given to me about the most commonly given us about which has about a letter from a variety of what I am of them in the North Carolina chamber in the metro Myers supply line as the city's roll out homer Colville money which is a percentage of the gas tax collections for the maintenance of male Lions may receive is based on the number of miles of roads that they maintain and this is set for a pullout from the statements money with the state maintains statements within minutes pounds and county and us that revenue would be lost to the cities and many of them would place the potential that (SPEAKER CHANGES) tax increase for Governor Edmund Wong, is the genuine, some questions yields are everybody seems to me that we've all read Proust and one count of local governments and this would be additional obligations pushed down today and so we would not seem be fiscally responsible for us to handle this problem nailed keep the municipalities, the two we do, the solution rather than trying to force is down mail to solve and then come back as some point in reverse and an asteroid are you sure that was the intent of the bill for whatever says ray Jahn from white version of Jackson runs as represented zero questions he would you does the java from a colonial to the Jama from white to making this the house, residency review if you can help me with your comment earlier about Steve file used 80 contact (SPEAKER CHANGES) I'm missing out on these are caused not only do not, Steven banks last month and pay it and that's a clear IC, made before last we will call the chain's endowment for Bulgaria ideals battle with the sure you can contact him by saying that he now lives in guess I'm not sure of that time when she's right now allowed non-Meyers a DHCP and give you some responses is there some visual language in this IR say that we have to Pasadena every two years session (SPEAKER CHANGES)it is critically important bomb to defend things done correctly that's how to explain to me by my CPA Data and a better system thank you for the best is away from white version of avalanche to meet today to they'll play as a flood of data to thank you Mr. Speaker does anybody thing in this chamber right now think that we're gonna be able to take care of North Carolina Reds and 30¢ a gallon no we as a percent of all inmates in early have for this D a button upon finding our taxes event from our citizens for their roots on the conditions that we have absolutely no control over and ever since I've been down your neck sleep before I came down here every six months before either cheering the archives and when the tax and depth gas tax either when a boy came down we have a residence as they give the people of a wild we have a residence halls say(SPEAKER CHANGES) it might seize other sources people that's exactly what we're trying to do with this tale what the people of North Carolina Walter two things they wanted rides that they also need constant thing in the sense of knowing what to expect from six months to six months if you got the kind of budget and I keep hearing how we used as examples around here we have got the technology we got people drawn our rights bill and even stopping and gas stations to buy gas(SPEAKER CHANGES) and nowhere in those rides just as much as they got the job and he is are in filling out with 40 gallons of gas at one time we cannot have that kind of disparity because the bond is the default is it always does in taxes disproportionately on people who cannot afford to pay them is our responsibility as good still words and a smart legislators to come up with a payment system that is based on things that are within the control..............
DGARTD [0:00:00.0] …Of the State of North Carolina whatever those sources maybe a combination of a gas tax that doesn’t fluctuate all over the place, fees for using the roads, user fees or probably the fairest way to pay for anything whether it’s your road or your state park or anything of that nature. The people that use it should pay for it and we have got to come up with a comprehensive plan and it’s going to be arrived at painfully, if we were at a situation where taxes were gonna go up July and we wanted to set the rate at 36 cents and it was gonna go to 38, we will be cheer and everybody, it will be a 120 that nothing vote in here. The reason it’s painful for us is because it is going to be a painful change but it’s going to be a long-term comprehensive change that will give our citizens the constancy that they need and the fact of no one that every six months they are not, don’t have to worry about making an adjustment to their budget because we don’t have control of their taxes for keeping their roads, please vote yes. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Guilford, Representative Blust raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To see if Representative Burr will yell for a question. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Does the gentleman from Stanley yell to the gentleman from Guilford? [SPEAKER CHANGES] I yell. [SPEAKER CHANGES] He yells. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Burr, how much each budget year is currently being taken from the Highway Trust Fund from the gas tax revenue and put into the General Fund for uses in other areas? [SPEAKER CHANGES] Representative Blust before we took the majority it was over 426 million dollars, for the current fiscal year its right at 255 million dollars. So right there if that money was not transferred from the Highway Trust Fund to the general fund that’s a five cents essentially every year this being transferred out to pay for items in the General Fund. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Rutherford, Representative Hager raise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Thank you Mr. Speaker, last time you listened intently believe it or not and to everybody and I have got what I think of some ?? of wisdom here and let me go over little quick and I would like to quote Representative Gram and saying, “We have to have the best interest of our citizens at heart. We can’t put another burden on our citizens that are actions what we do here does matter and we have to answer those decisions that we make today and last but not least think about your constituents.” For me, that I had said that I probably vote against this bill and got to think and I got a spreadsheet laid on my desk today that are brought in this chamber with me. And I had the bridges that we need to fix in North Carolina by the section they are and I having to see four bridges in Burt County part of my district but actually slightly outside of my district. And my children have to across when they go home from Raleigh and they need fixes, it’s about 12 million dollars worth of fixes that need to be these bridges that my children, my parents, and people that I know in my constituency will drive across some everyday and that changed my mind guys when it becomes real to you, when you understand your constituents will drive across these bridges one of every five in North Carolina are structurally deficient as we speak now, they need to be fixed. So I thought a little bit more and now listen to what Representative Mitchell says, “Give the people what they need. Or to show is safety of what they drive on everyday, what your constituents need, I think it is.” Then I listen to what Representative Hall said, “Can we afford to do this?” Or let me just give you a good example, in Lee and Montgomery Counties I think that’s the reason and Simons Districts they are seven million dollars with their bridge repair there, you want your citizens driving on those? Ask yourself that, if you give your citizens what they need is the safe roads, is it for your wives, your mothers, your children, your constituents to get to work everyday, to be able to go about their business everyday on safe roads and safe bridges, is it so important that you demonize this issue that everybody here knows we need to fix, that you would say that the save your citizens just because you wanna make a political point, you say sake your assistance at stake, would you do that? You need to ask yourselves that right now. I would say we need to vote for this bill, we need to get a permanent fix, and we do need to give our citizens what they need, we need to give them safe roads and bridges. I think this is a small price to pay. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from… [0:04:59.4] [End of file…]
As endeavors and a less to debate the bill down as for innovative make a mistake are these are not comment on Saturday that this bill one lead of the year while the tax system made the calls were not a March 31 use some were considered sites in the media surviving a window with a member of the short a novel ideas are the salmon and is a bigger number and 30¢ and so some people want a sign that city employees while out on the home of the someone went to the widening princess of the Crusoe got out of more than one in my view is I have never liked uploading tax cat to win the index we have a chance to get away from that once and for all let's move away from an muskets of stability mistakes that might lead in the east bay from Al to stabilize the transportations names of our saving our CDs and we can do something better in Mainz and to fix this whole problem: forward so we don't come back to this position again in the future and there's an outlying detail won the prize of Wilson be the future a out and buying the members of the Encino committee say we didn't know it wasn't enough for student knows today that nobody via the palladium now have the prices have any of the future when they play in the mud and we wouldn't be in this fine would be set up by someone with a big bank account so it's a tendency to Bowie and CSD Life, out of a tax that resets itself over six months and Mazzola and that's what we didn't make for the best as the(SPEAKER CHANGES) Jonathan Demme version of Enron's thing is to have to use it and we'll miss him as a fit of a veiled second, but as the Canadian a precedent of those of other members of the level of demand is undeniably sure all we did stay with the procedures of davis' the senate bill would violate signs a database of cities we know we know that you tomorrow and the school and took office of family and a big Mo Simmons in a statement also has encompassed those sold by egos 70 in this bill is questionable at best the other thing is as we talk about. In every city, residents reference to the loss of revenue to local communities and in outlook and I get an obscene audit indicated what would be lost in my district about 1,230,000 now the back and look at what was lost as a result of data, this takes away from my district last year no standing it's only make these decisions and these bodies sometimes seems we say is a right to take on away from local municipalities so they can meet their needs and safety and operations center wrote another tons of we'll be set on all deaths impact and all that should be applauded it should be no stock sold as (SPEAKER CHANGES) we thought about how do we keep hearing why the CDC cities in the situation very and we did it in the meaning of us majority help create this emergency yugoslavia's fire, is part of what the tax policy was to players and soul of you won the maxim that is what you said you but this that we can make history and make it sound as if this is something new that happen and we did know about taking put the baby dolls away from a budget that that would not hurt mail and it now they have another me that makes this even more (SPEAKER CHANGES) so I'm a yield to the fact that you haven't already in the right to do that because won the election with you have the responsibility to two going into this all ms 92, down the road of state utility to precede that we we yield to that we have the bill does all this not create Dixon because we have to solve this problem and we don't have that much time actually we don't really think about the role it will be borrowing in a more constitutional and it will go to a conference committee , she said that descended and there will be applied and confiscated so out of our intention is to get the problem solved it not to say we had a patch for a couple months as really not only do this, this is only about him that it's just a ...............
People's good will and determination to get this done. So I hope you will have that good will and determination, especially in the conference committee in getting this matter solved going forward. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] For what purpose does the gentleman from Mecklenberg, Representative Brawley, rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] To debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman has the floor to debate the bill a second time. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Well, I recognize the role that my good friend and debating combatant Larry Hall plays as minority leader. He has to do the talking points. He has to fight the partisan battles. Party leadership on both sides has to do that. I'm not in party leadership. I'm a committee chair. I have to try to govern. And I know there will be people on both sides of the aisle that will help me do that. For the record, I do not want anyone to put words in my mouth that I did not say. Today the gas tax is 35 and a half cents. So excuse me, 37 and a half cents. If this bill passes on April 1, it will drop to 36. When July 1 comes, it will not drop to 30, which it would do. It will remain at 36. It is less of a tax cut than people would have received. The chief engineer from DOT texted me some information. We've had battling numbers like crazy. But his text was fairly easy to understand. One cent on the gas tax costs the average driver $7.50 a year. A seven and a half or a six cent cut in the gas tax that will not take place on July 1 times $7.50 will cost the average driver in North Carolina 45 dollars a year. Since we are depriving drivers of that six cents tax cut for six months, that's $22.50 cents per driver. $3.75 a month. I do not believe many people are going to miss a meal over $3.75 a month. We have a bad situation with which we must deal. I ask you to help me put in a patch and then let us work together to fix this problem in a way that we are not back here in one year or three years or even ten years trying to figure out how we are going to build roads in the state of North Carolina. I ask for your support on the bill. Thank you. [SPEAKER CHANGES] Further discussion, further debate. If not, the question before the house is the passage of the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 20 on its second reading. So many favoring passage will vote aye. Those opposed will vote no. The clerk will open the vote. The clerk will lock the machine and record the vote. 70 having voted in the affirmative and 47 in the negative, the House Committee Substitute for Senate Bill 20 passes its second reading and will remain on the calendar. Notices and announcements. The clerk will read notices and announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The House Committee on children, youth and families will meet Thursday March 5, 2015, 15 minutes after session in room 421, LLB. [SPEAKER CHANGES] What purpose does the gentleman from Wake, Representative Dollar rise? [SPEAKER CHANGES] An announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] The gentleman is recognized for an announcement. [SPEAKER CHANGES] My folks have been asking about the budget. I just want to tell you for your future planning, next Tuesday morning at 8:30, next Tuesday at 8:30 we will have a joint appropriations committee meeting that everyone in the
Wilson is invited to call with the senate and the harvest will be the director of the budget in the Miss Julie Roberts and he will oversee the governor's budget cut to the general assembly that time slot 643 next Tuesday morning at 830 plus as is an Atty.(SPEAKER CHANGES) who represented Davis for us from else john Andretti has announced plans for the November committeeman to mormonism o'clock AM and 64-point advantage of me as for this allows the House Committee on finance and even some of his 2015 to 8 30 AM room 544 the one that says the Jonathan days of the senate finance the mistake not to do as long as he acted not use it to a saucepan and smiles when safety mickey levy ouster from 10 of event that would have these restate the first announcement has a similar has an option of van Nuys woman visit marks 50,055 set a session runs of 21 Elden Knapp( SPEAKER CHANGES) says the life and white represented an alliance announcement by the SEC has announced the house joined the creation on health and human services will be in the morning at 8:30 AM and 643 finances and announcements saying an agenda from a 27 Lewis recognize for much the state of unknown for the house and john McEnroe and Connors and minuses : caffeine is a 17-of those resolutions the city that is a decent and phone bills and resolutions that if a season of the native and as the sun cities and has unveiled his license to date as the mustangs 11:00 AM desert and say I'm as high as many as an analysis of them have a nice if an animal is how stealing an estimate from the committee on commerce wavering any of them as an available every instance.................