Good morning members that this time will call this House Elections Committee to order. We'd like to recognize our pages if they are with us, we have Alicia Harrison from Wake County, sponsored by representative Stan, If you would stand if you are here? And, then we have ward junior form Dare County sponsored by Representative Tine in the back there. So we are glad to have you with us and hope you're having a good week here in the General Assembly. Our sergeant at arms today are Bill Burls, John Brandon and Marc Kane, thank you all gentlemen for your service Members of, we don't usually meet in this room, just remind the members if you do speak, there is microphone in front of you, you just need to tap them and make them green and you can be hard, with that said we have one bill on today's agenda. That's House Bill 457, Representative Louis you're recognized to present your bill. Thank you Mr. Chairman and members for your time today, House Bill 457 is very simple, it would change North Carolina's presidential primary from occurring on February 23rd and it would make it the first Tuesday after the first Monday in March, this would be a conforming change with the national political parties would make sure that the people back home want to be involved, and want to attend and participate in the nominating process, for fully being able to do so, while at the same time ensuring that North Carolina's voice is heard in being able to determine who the major party nominees for [XX] so this keeps us move forward enough to be relevant in the process, but moves us back a couple of weeks to make sure that we can be as relevant as we can be. And I will respectfully ask for favor report. Members questions or comments? Representative Hamilton, Harrison, I'm sorry. It has been a long day already. I'm confused about, I understand that the cost of operating [xx] somewhere around $13 and that has got up because that was about four, five years ago, now we have to set the primary so who bears the cost of this primary [xx] Representative I think your question is valid, I think it's one that deserves continued conversation but to be clear the current law prescribe for two primaries to be held, one if February and one in May. This bill will simply change the date of the one that for February the administration of the primary of the decision to have to, primaries it's not really what's before the committee today. Members are there any further questions or comments? Okay. Representative [xx] [xx] what's that. would these bills get you all around a little bit trouble to-- do a little delegation just to instate the idea, and we reviewed strong too based on our I don't see if we will cutting electrical matures [xx] I get it I'll take that representative Stern, did you have comment or? You're for the motion. Okay, representative Gill you recognise what is the problem of having the exception being made for Susan? The problem is that with the exception of 2008 when there was a close contest for democratic nominations between senator Clinton and then senator Obama, most of the time by May the decision of who they want to be the presidential nominees has been made, and North Carolina is not relevant in the decision-making process. Further discussion, further debate, if
not representative Mitchell you recognize for mention. Representative Mitchell remains for a favorable report. The house bill 457, all those in favor signify by saying aye. Aye. All opposed nay. The Ayes have it, the business being completed this meeting is adjourned. Thank you quickly, hopefully not preventing the committee from giving proper consideration of things. We are going to start with House Bill which is post on a calender but before I do that, we will have a clipboard, we do have a clipboard we got one yet, it's almost there, if you desire to speak on a bill today, please sign up and put your name and if you're with an organisation or group and what topic it is you want to speak on. Now this may not and I hope that the preliminary indications that a number of people wanted to be heard on House Bill 318 that start with, I can't afford to let the committee spend all of its time on that one bill and not get to the others, so it's my intention to try to take a vote on House Bill 318, if that pleases the committee at twenty after the hour. So we are going to have to compact comments to the extent necessary, try to get that bill on, so we want to hear from the public if we have got too many speakers, we may have, if you are from the same organization, we may ask you to talk among yourselves and agree on a spokesperson. If we can't do that, we got too many to be heard without limiting to you to 20 seconds or something, then we may land on the select people from the list but if you sign up back there on clipboard and if the Sergent at Arms can sought of, let me know when we have that [xx]. We're going to start with House Bill 318, Protect North Carolina Workers' Act, is there a PCS? No. There is not OK, Representative Cleveland. Thank you Mr Chairman. Mr Chairman who is courtifying then they could re-run that first, Representative xx? OK. I understand there [xx] memo to offer? I think it was already passed out. It's already been passed out. You have a motion. You want to explain the amendment the only thing that the amendment does is that expand the definitions allowing the municipalities in the cities to, of what their and requiring e-verify requirements. Are there questions from the committee on the amendment? comments on the amendment. Representative Riddell your motion was tored up the amendment. Those in favor say Aye oppose No the ayes have it. The amendment is adopted. Rep. [xx] on the main bill as amended. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, the in the last section we did somethings with e-verify that cost us a little and the present bill will rectify them. The municipalities, the cities, the counties. They're all on board with this. The only one that has some problems with is the chamber of commerce, this is National Chamber of Commerce is on board with e-verify, we'll address that a little later. I'll go through the summAry here quickly. We're going to recommend to amend the law to increase the number of employees who are required to participate in the Federal e-verify program. We're going to increase by 110, 500 employers. That still leaves 150, 000 employers thousand in the state that will not be required to use you e-verify. We're going to refill the exemption for temporary employees, we're going to exclude farm workers from the definition of employee of to the chapter 64. We're going to require E-verified compliance and certain governmental contracts now as a portion that was taking out at the end of last year's session, we've solved the problems that the municipalities and counties had with that and it's back in we're going to provide the
[xx] in these documents may not be used to determine the identification of residency for governmental law to w enforcement processes or purposes. Going through the sections of the bill, section one of House bill 318 amends the definition of article to the state E-verified requirement and is definition of employee to remove the exclusion for employers whose terms of employment is less than nine months in a calender year and adds a provision excluding farm workers, independent contractors or individuals who provide domestic service in a private home with sporadic, irregular or intermittent basis, the section also moves the definition of an employer to reduce the number of employees an employer must have to be subject to the law. Currently it's 25, we're reducing it to five. And as I said we're adding basically 110, 000 employers and there's still 150, 000 out there that will not be required to use E-verify and we had a definition of farm worker, and independent contractor in that section. Section two of the bill adds a new section to the public contracts law. This prohibits any foreign or governing body of the state or state institution or political subdivision from entering into a contract unless the contractor and his sub-contractor is complied with e-verified requirements the government had ended this can't satisfy this requirement by including in the contract a term requiring the contractor or any subcontractors to comply with the state E-verified requirement. All they have to do is put a statement in there that says, 'must comply'. The provision specifically exempts from this application contracts for trying to [xx] and solely for the purchase of goods or contracting through piggyback contracts. These are contracts for purchase established by State of Federal Government in which the contractors ois willing to extend to a political subdivision the same or more favorable prices terms or conditions. Sections 2 B and C repeal a provision for prohibiting municipalities and counties from entering contracts unless the contract complies with the state e-verify requirements since they're now covered by the new section which is 2A. Section 3 amends the Local Government Finance Act with regard to penalties imposed on finance officers to give false certification to a contract agreement. Under current law the finance officer is liable for any funds illegally committed or dispersed. This section has the provision that inclusion of a contract term require under the contractor has complied to e-verified requirements themes compliance with these requirements, we're protecting the Finance Officers. This is what we are doing. So [xx] 6 sections 4 to 10 the conforming changes of various sections of Article 2 chapter 64, section 11 has a new section to Article 2 chapter 64 which is established consequences for violation of the new government, contract e-verified requirement. The commission of labor is going to check that the government identity are following the law and if they don't they are going to put it on their website maintain a list of government and [xx] notified that they are not following the law as they should. Section 12 as the new Article 18 to chapter 15 A and title Identification Documents. This provision depicts the use of certain documents unacceptable by any government official for the purpose of determinant of the person's identity or residency. The documents are a meticulous councillor and other similar documents other than a valid passport and an identity document created by personal organization, city county or article 30 expect where expresely authorised by the General Assembly. Anyone that has to have a Councillor Card is in the country illegally. There's no way a dancer books parlor. They're here illegally. Back in the early 90s, the state allowed consulate cards to be used because the large immigration illegal immigrant population we had so that it could function in society. They can open bank accounts. We even issued driver's license packed and based on them and for those of you that were here then, it was a mess. I'm in North Carolina became a real problem for the rest of the country. Everyone was coming through here picking up a driver's license and going on to the rest of the country and look like they were perfectly legal. So we're going to put a
stop to that and 13, 14, 15 are making conforming changes to motor vehicle or the insurance law medical assistance [xx] to remove the use of consulate documents from listed documents can be used to verify state residency and Mr. Chairman that's. Are there questions directed in favor I think the direction of Richardson may have a question. Representative. Yes my question, I have if it's appropriate this time, the first question is that, since we are exempting the egg workers and the other groups does the document that you said that the state have for egg[sp?] workers also have this stipulation in there that they cannot use this particular document for the the agricultural workers that are being exempted from this bill. You speaking with [xx]? Yes. The councilor cort will not be used for identification for governmental or law enforcement purposes for anyone in the state. So the document that you said the state has setup for Hague workers also has this I did not state that they In the committee meeting, I'm sorry, I am not a procedures follower, in the committee meeting I thought you said that the agriculture workers and domestic were exempt from this because the state has a different guideline for them to follow? No. No. I've exempted him because in doing some research, they are a very small portion of problem, and it was the big bugaboo in the past. So they've been exempt. Follow up. One More. Yes, so this will be chamber be speaking today or can you tell me what the exception is for our state chamber. There is no exception for the state chambers [xx] at the state chambers is not happy with lowering E-Verify number for employers the Federal Chamber, the United States Chamber, is perfectly happy with E-Verify and is, what's this in here? [xx] Okay, this is from the US Chamber of Commerce. The technical aspects of E-verify system are approved a long the U. S chamber with our members to reassess our position. We now support a uniform national policy, expanding the use of E-verify. For the US chambers, the most subordinate issue remaining for the e-verify and implement real case policy are strong pre-emption language state, and local laws that mandate to use of E-verify establish state, for local investigation enforcement schemes new demand existing FAR rules which respect contractors obligation be easy verified. So they have follow up they've changed [xx] Representative Glacia[sp?] I apologize. We re going to get this done, you know well against cross over. I've got three more community members to ask question, if we have time I'll come back to you. Thank you. I've finished, thank you Okay, thank you. Representative [xx] did you have a question? okay, we'll come back to you after that. Representative Hamilton did you have a question? Yeah. Thank you Mr. Chairman. The first question may be for staff. Are we is [xx] North Carolina in a position to determine that contract or entry document not valid? Mr. Stanley come forward Thanks Stanley for redrafting, there has not been a lot of case along this jurisdiction on this subject there's a been a couple of case from other circuits and well I don't know that there's consensus. Generally speaking laws like these that limit the use of these documents for state governmental purposes have been upheld while those that would limit their use in all transactions including private transactions have not been upheld. Follow up. Follow up. In this case, the way that this is written does this apply only to law enforcement? State agency. No grafting This implies to state governmental agencies including law law enforcement agencies as well as local to local counterparts to those agencies. One last follow up, this is simple. OK Cleveland you mentioned again on the State Chamber of Commerce, have they endorsed this bill specifically? I mentioned them in the e-verifying contacts and they're 40 verified. I have not given them the spill to look at, [xx] correct. If you go to Mexico, thanks to mexico accept the consulate card for identification, I believe all the 33 states in
Mexico, 10 of them will accept the consulate card for temporary identification. Representative [xx]. Thank you Mr. Chairman, this is an easy [xx] this bill [xx] so many exemptions in here [xx], give me some examples will not exempt. The only thing this bill exempts are farm workers and domestic verify and it exempts many things that municipalities and counties do in contracting seats for lodging and meetings, transportation for meetings, purchasing of goods not services. In reality there is not a plethora of exemptions. Thank you. Representative Torbit? Inquiry to Chair. Yes sir? I apologize for being late very humbly, but can you give the status of an amendment that I found lying at my [xx] It was approved by the committee at the beginning of the discussion of this bill. Thank you very much. Okay. Not seeing any other questions at this point, I want to try to give an opportunity briefly, I only can allow about a minute. I've got four people signed up on the list, I'll call you, as you're on the list, and if you'll just, we've got a mic there if you'll come to the mic, you will need to move that mic out from the wall. If you'll come up to the mic, give us your name and what organization, if any, you're with. The first person on the list is Ron Woodard. And Mr. Woodard again I apologize but we'll have to limit, one minute please. Okay, I'm Ron Woodard, director of NC Listen and I urge you to vote for House Bill 318. You've made progress in reducing unemployment but a year six rate of unemployment in our state is actually over 10%. We've had our state population increase by 640, 000 people but our jobs have only increased by 100, 000. You've verified a sensible way to protect jobs for citizens and it works. But we need to get rid of these loopholes and that's what this bill does. We're surrounded by states that have tougher E-Verify laws and they seem to work very well.companies that higher legal workers pay in demand of the table and their work is to their advantage we shouldn't let them get away that. They require photo ID to get unemployment benefit should we require to e-verify, jobs go on and live a residence, sweeping this country is they often don't advertise jobs. They look to hire illegal immigrants, E-verify would stop this. Our state gives millions having incentives to create jobs, I think we want to make sure these jobs who are legally here and our State Legislature employment benefit adding compact credit to encode citizens, there should be like a similar ethic for working people, thank you Thank you Mr. Woodward next speaker is Blondson[sp?] Yeah My name is Prep Brands and I'm of them once got once displaced. I work for a large national company which started out as small, very small always there. Look case to the 300 people I was laid off to speak [xx] for immigrants after that I put in for vacation to go to Washington to speak to a representative [xx] that Friday, this company during American recovery [xx] an anarchia. We did a job down there. It was supposed to be all American made products, all American workers. They used all [xx] except myself and the super attendant on the job. In you consider [xx] [xx], that fraud. This company along with several others, use contract and hire [xx] . He pulls 120 records under him [xx], workers in cash. This is done through [xx] in his E-verified. Thank you Sir. And the next speaker is Alex Miller. Okay, actually sorry and there's one other person that didn't indicate what bill they want to speak on. Is it Wayne Payne or somebody Payne for the State Grange that looks like we're done. Okay. I want to acknowledge the Representatives [xx] and Carney who are also primary sponsors of the legislation are here and I'm assuming that you all will be satisfied to say nothing that being the case Representative Hagar you are recognized for a motion. Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'll make sure I get this motion right, the motion looks favorable for House
bill 318 as amended and roll them to a new PCS that's right motion? Yes Sir, with a favorable report to the committee secretary and unfavorable to the original bill, that's your motion right? Yes sir it is. Alright, so further discussion saying all those in favor say 'I' oppose 'no', the 'I's' have it, the motion is adopted. The next bill before the committee is House bill 633 occupational licence, professional designation, before I did that, I forgot a bit of housekeeping, and it's important to stay on the good side of our Sergeant at Arm. Our Sergeant at Arms today are Colton Adams, Martha Gadison is at the back, and Joel Austin is up here at the front and Our Pages for today who I will want to ask to stand from Burke County sponsored by Representative Paul Tom, one of our committee members, is Bob Wills Jr. He's at the back and then sponsored by representative of Burke county Desmond Woods, Desmond also at the back. Thank you for being here, representative Tobbit. Thank you Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. This basically run down, I think it's just a clarification bill, it specifies and clearly state real state appraisals, appraisers will be being this professional services in the state of North Carolina there was some unclarity before and this provides that clarity thank you for the question Mr Chairman. Questions for Representative Tobbit. There's PCS or anything, right? OK. Harger give it a go. Thank you, Mr. Chairman [xx] favorable report to house bill 633. I don't think it has any it goes to the floor. OK. Discussion by the committee, seeing none those in favor say aye opposed no, the Ayes have it. The motion is [xx] Congratulations for [xx] this morning. House bill 721 sub divisional [xx] lines development changes Representative [xx] Brian there is a PCS there is a PCS on this bill [xx] to the members, is the motion that PCS [xx] before the committee so moved in objection saying PCS before the committee Thank you Mr. Chair, you guys have to help me appeal for a little while get the start up that's the last successiful subdivision before we get to other privacy bills you probably had questions asked about, and I'm sorry that we probably got PCS's on all these about money cooperate last night, and giving thanks for a fantastic working late and help me get give out this subject as in the orders bill. If take a look on the sub-standard grade. Some may reach helps explain it, and the changes you can access before you nominate. When you do the this relates to some of the rules regarding performance guarantees. This have to be put up by developers, voters to make sure certain infrastructure is put in in a neighborhood, you can imagine neighborhood subdivision being developed, certain infrastructure city has and interest in making sure that happens and so they put out this performance guarantees, basically this makes some changes the health make the process better and hopefully clear for all of the parties involved and have worked with whom voters and municipalities realities and some other folks on making some changes to this and any of those, I think we've reached a pretty good consensus from that bring into comment and the changes that I want to read quickly for you. The first, which was pronounced for basically section one and I guess is section 3C and then G2 is basically disqualifying exactly that the point is what the term performance guarantee really mean, and it just outlines different types of performance guarantees that have to be accepted it's basically allowing developers and builders to make sure they've a chance to pick the tie guarantee that will work for them and then the second and if you look at section G2 it just clarify that the performance has to be returned when
the prove that it's actually completed and it throws the guys on the stage and basically if they're not complete they have to extend the performance guarantee and the bolder developers still can choose what pipe guarantee they want in that circumstance NeXchange basically is that a performance can clean out exceed 125% of the recently estimated cost. Just trying to make sure the performance bond doesn't put into the mouth that not in line with the actual cost, should be for the improvements and they end in the last one is that it's only used for the completion of the improvements and not for [xx] or maintenance after completion that's the point of the installation of them. I think maybe when the last point is that their performance guaranties provided in a couple of other circumstance, and I may have to have staff give her a reminder to which other sections that hits on, but it's basically making the performance guarantee rules apply the same and a couple of other statutory instances, and I think I covered the bulk of it, but I would be glad to take questions. The questions from members of the committee Representative Hamilton. Thank you Mr. Chairman [xx] I just finished my real estate licence and I can't remember the threshold to which development can occur [xx] re-cordation is that the first step in being able to sell property? I think that's straight and I like that, but I think that is correct and in fact and that's why you can't, they can't [xx] lots of [xx] is when they can actually start so you get the infrastructure up to that point. OK followup real quick, there have been many instances in Bradley County by district in particular where we had a housing boom. They were selling land. They had surety bonds and the company went bankrupt and the county did not force the construction of the infrastructure that you've got hundreds of lot and lots of candidates don't have the infrastructure to development even when the charity was in place, so I think this is a good step towards protecting the consumer. I might want to talk you about a step further. Representative Adams. Yes, just kind of thinking back on that. I'm looking at, it says that performance guarantee shall be returned upon the completion and improvements for which performance guarantee is being required. If the approvence are not completed, the forms guaranteed shall be extended and the form of such guarantee shall remain at the election of the developer. Suppose there's a dispute over whether or not the performance guarantee has been fulfilled, the improvements are not complete. I've seen this before. I guess I'm looking for a further elaboration bill. What are the steps signal signal I say Mr. Speaker if it wasn't for the, the improvement have been made. Yeah the existing statute I don't think it addresses it and we have it taken a step and I think the reality is most folks don't want to have a law suit but that means you couldn't set up a process just to say we haven't gone to the point of setting up a process but confirming he is going to deem what's complete at what point. And so this point again is not going to issue whatever, it's not going to upgrade or release it. Represent Rollingham did I skip did you have your question? Okay. Representative Rollinham. or else. [xx] I'm sorry the Chair asked me a question I think you were just asking about, what we've done to changes is if you have one project that is ongoing as long as you complete it, it doesn't matter what's happening on the other projects, they have to release on that project disputes other things they can't try to use one project to impact another. Representative Warren did you have a question? No Mr. Chair just wanted to be recognized at appropriate time for a motion.
Alright are there other comments questions from the committee seeing none representative Waren you are recognized for motion. Thank you Mr. Chair, look for a favorable report on the PCS for 721 and favorable to the original. Is that OK? You happy with that? Alright, OK discussion seeing none, those in favor say aye, Aye, oppose no, the ayes have it, the motion is adopted. Representative [xx], you ready to go again? House bill 79 line 2 privacy and protection say you have a PCS? We do have a PCS. Is that distributed? Have you all got them? PCS, committee members have PCS. Is there a motion that PCS [xx] for committee Representative [xx] recognised. Unfortunately I'm still waiting for the [xx] myself, I will this is a, 1792 was commonly maybe you may have heard it refer to it as revenge porn, I think [xx] [xx] came from California, someone posting a some pornography, I'm so scare to use the word up, as a, you know to get back at at an old spouse, girlfriend, boyfriend, whatever, it's actually a website for it. So what this bill is doing is basically making that a crime. And I think given a civil, I'm sorry, it's all criminal. I'm mistaking myself Yes. This a piece echo try to make sure you have a piece respond. After all of us take what we need to do of the definition language you can read that yourself. We have tried to work with some parties including what Gripson was under domestic ballot issues and they may comment, and I don't think this bill covers everything that they would like to cover but I think you will see it is a big step in the right direction for protecting folks. As we all know what the [xx] what[sp?] we have now? There's just a lot of, just easier for people to post things that may not otherwise be a crime now and this allows protection proposed and frankly we [xx] when this kind of thing happens and I'm glad to take any questions, I think most of it speaks for itself [xx]. Okay, Representative Bishop is also a sponsor of this issue, do you have anything to say at this point? None at the moment. Okay, Representative [xx] recognized. Thank you Mr. Chair. Question on the bill please. Representative Brown, can you just elaborate just little bit on the impact say this happens on a junior high or high school kids. This obviously may now appear on their either juvenile or prominent record [xx] can you explain [xx] I may pass [xx] I think I'll generally say there's a whole bunch of rules that in the court system that apply on minors and how these things are [xx]. I have seen all those same rules will still apply with respect to minors staff on. Miss. Quick you want to comment on on that any? our daughter has become an [xx] I just [xx] to extend that some other law has violated the 15 year old and the same process, and protection per manner. We'll still be in place. It doesn't do anything from the manner perspective. Now, certainly if you then make it easier xx but you can imagine is happening because of as well this fairly serious penalty. Representative Warren I think I skipped you, you had indicated you wanted to be recognized. You did sir, that's alright. I just want to make a comment to the bill sponsors then I think this Bill and the next two that he has are excellent bills, and we'll support all three of them. I think they probably don't want a lengthy explanation. They're pretty substantial. I think you recognize the promotion on this one at appropriate time. OK. Are there other question or comments from the committee? Seeing none, we do have a speaker, Alex Moore wanted to be heard on this Mr. Muller. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Members of the committee representing North Carolina coalition against smetic violence. So I want to thank representative Brian, representative Bishop and representative Felocrohp, and the other they cost Francis to this bill had been appointed for a step. I'm certainly there are some instances where images such as these can be stolen by someone is not in a relationship with
the person depicted in those images could be post aligned. They still cover those would like to tee that look at it some point and appreciate the bill sponsors, hoping that they're hearing our concerns and looking forward to working with them as the bill extends to [xx] the process. Thank you. Thank you. Questions, comments from members of Committee if seeing none Representative Wang[sp?] you're recognised for a motion. Thank you, Mr Chair, I would like to move for favorable report on House bill 792. That would be to the proposed committee substitute as it's not amended, proposed committee substitute the favorable report to it and unfavorable to the original bill, right? Yes, Sir. Okay questions, comments? Seeing none, those in favor say Aye. "Aye". Oppose No. The Ayes have it, next bill. Representative [xx] would you mind doing house bill 793? I'll be glad to, thank you, Mr. Chair this is the secret peeping bill. Right now we obviously have a law against secret peeping. It also a felony to be secret peeping for gratification purposes. All this bill does is add as a felony secret peeping which is then use, and secret peeping can include not just like looking into window but taking a picture or the video things like that obviously they are easier to do for the purpose of harming, intimidating, exhorting, threatening or defrauding another person, so there's the gratification side and then there's, someone could just use this to harm someone else, to intimidate them. Representative Tolbert I have a question, we used a unique instance of actually [xx]. Let's say a person across the street from me has set up a a camera, and that camera is obviously focused on my residence, but when confronted about that they say actually it's just a security camera for their property. But to me it is something that is totally surveilling my comings and goings in my personal habitat so to speak, will that fall under this law? I made that stuff up, but I think it would not because I don't think it falls under any of those purposes. You mention, I'm sorry , follow up Mr. Chair, one of the purposes and I'm sorry it was in your description, let me go back to the Bill and state but, it's perhaps it intimidating. I must perceive it personally to be intimidating, and I've to say that a lot of people think that [xx] and if you thought you're being [xx]. I'm glad for everybody comment, I have struggled to think and may be better law as the other night but the that, I think you have to prove maybe some intent regarding intimidation and that might be difficult and the Bill does specify that it has to be into a room and you have to be secretly or start patiently using or installing the device. so how long so anything exclude the building would not be cut on the bills, you are wrong. Is that correct? need comings who re coming again, it defines more on wrestling about being the shower or your dressing room but it's not one of your kind. Thank you Mrs. Chairman. You don't ask about and being slow was this, any other question comments, representative Adams? Yeah I was, other device, a drone, that would be absolutely excellent this from two years for this kind of thing. Could it too be cramble, would drawing be covered will drones be covered into this? I think it ended into those plans that would be correct, OK, representative Tobby not try affiliate to the, that was also covered up on the drawn registration on the current keep off then in place, other questions or comments from the members of committee, saying that, I carry representative Bishop be recognized for a motion all the xx. For the PCS, there's not a PCS on it. Oh, OK. Sorry. OK. favorable report to the bill, is there comment or discussion? Seeing none, those in favor say aye, Aye! Aye!
Oppose No. The ayes have it, motion is adapted. Representative Brian how about one more time. House Bill 794 P. C. S. Is a P. C. S okay There is a P. C. S on this. Does everybody have that? Is there a motion that the P. C. S there's a motion that the P. C. S leaves before the committee. Any objection? Seeing none the PCS is before the committee. Thank you Mr. Chair this is one we just going to step on they can collapse the deadline this is what's commonly known as online impersonation so this is protection from online impersonation. Someone stealing maybe effectively maybe hacking your email account and sending it out. I might have staff comment a little because I know care to the great job working 3D, there're various persons, the person who is being impersonated, the impersonator and then other folks and I just met except the definitions, but xx calm any rule on the below? The Bills defines three different people try to avoid using the same person over and over again. There is the person who is the impersonator who assumes another person's identity in an incredible way that other people would believe in [xx] there is the person who is in the bill, called the misrepresented person, they are the persons whose identity are being assumed and the term that [xx] is to impersonate somebody who is actually engaging in, [xx] I'm sorry the person doing the impersonating is called the impostor in the bill. So if you have an impostor who takes on the identity of misrepresented person, and then either to the harm of that person, because the harm, the [xx] and because of how they're asking him that person or to another person someway intimidate or just to [xx] the third person that after could be [xx] of the crime and a civil action to the charge established. Next. An easy example might be if someone your emailing back and forth with your mum, you need some extra money, someone manages to hack that email ans ask your mum wires the money to the person where your mum, your harmed because they've taken money you should have gotten, and your mum on proceeds send the money to someone else, is trying to cover all parties might get harmed from the hormone taking of your impersonation. Motions, comments, questions from the committee. Let me see Rep. Brian are you on a motion also. Yes sir. OK representative Bishop is out of comments, question before I take the motion. Okay say none, representative Bishop moves favourable to the posed committee servitude and none fed water the original bill is that correct? Comments, discussions saying none those in favor say I, those oppose say no, congratulations committee you did six votes and we are adjourned