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

searching for


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

House | June 2, 2015 | Committee Room | Finance

Full MP3 Audio File

Good morning? Welcome finance today house Seargent at Arms are ready seals, [xx] Chris Macracin and David Laitin. Our house today that are with us are Mathew Bonichi from [xx] Canny support by Michael Specially both clacks of way can support by [xx] Jackson by representative Joseph. Good morning to you all. First off, we have one bill today before the committee, that's all we have, House bill 328 I've asked, and communicated with the bill sponsor s and any one involved, there will be no public comment because I feel like there will be a lot of questions and back and forth here in the committee, so we'll take care of that, dispatch of business accordingly, so that will be the bill that we need before us. We have a motion by representative Warren for the PSC of house bill 328 to be before us, do I have a second? Have a second, all those in favor, say aye, those opposed? The bill is before us recognizes bill sponsor, representative Warren? Thank you Mr. Chair, and good morning ladies and gentlemen of the committee? This is a fairly simple bill it is greatly misunderstood and deliberately misrepresented, so I thought that today being the only bill on the calender today we will have an opportunity to really fairly discuss the bill and to present it for what it's designed to do, and unlike some folks who've commented on the bill. The primary sponsors, we're going to be constraint by the truth about the bill, so this bill absolutely has nothing to do do with immigration, immigration law or immigration reform, nothing. This is about law enforcement, and about safety 54 citizens, it's simply that. Currently in our state we do have about 325, 000 undocumented immigrants. And now that we have probably 90 to 110, 000 who have driving age and are driving right now without any responsibilities that you and I have as citizens. One part of this bill which has been verified, and again this represented over the last three years that we've been working on this bill, it's only apart of it, and we're going to address that. There is a title Stacey[sp?] and tender the bill, is to improve the safety, physical and financial, of our citizens on the highway, and in their daily lives by enhancing some of the existing North Carolina statutes and creating several new ones. Although there are some provisions in the bill that's specifically pertained on documented immigrants, this bill applies to citizens as well. Nothing in the bill changes or impacts in any way the legal status, or lack of legal presence for the undocumented immigrants on our state every provision of this bill works for both citizens, and those illegally present in North Carolina accountable to North Carolina law. we'll begin the presentation of the bill with Representative Brown, and so I'll turn it over to him. Representative Brown.  Thank you Mr. Chairman, good morning members? And just want to thank you for allowing us to come before you and then present this bill, and I want we thank Representative Llyod for all of his hard work on this important matter, section two is what I would call as a relatively simple aspect what is Representative Lloyd said this is a public safety bill and part of in really looking at the public safety aspect of this we want to make sure that we put as much teeth in the existing statutes as we possibly can and that's very much of what section two does. The first part of section two increases the penalties for manufacturing sale and possession of illegal fraudulent identification cards, that's cards issued by the State of North Carolina, the Federal Government, other states, military ID's, passport etc from class one estimator to a class G felony. Section 2B of the bill, most of which is current statute but adds in the language of the restricted driver's permit restricted identification card to ensure this bill in fact passes in the law but it doesn't include those as a part of the driver's license and things that would be a part of this bill so it goes through what the fines, the penalties what it would be if you knowingly possess this documents and knowingly use these documents and pass them as your own this fraudulent documents, it increases them from a class I Felony to Class G Felony so we're simply

putting More T in the statute to ensure that this things are followed to the T of the law without our past two Representative Jordan to represent another portion of the bill. Representative Jordan you're recognized. Thank you Mr chairman, committee members thank you for allowing us to be heard on this important public policy issue. The portion of the bill I'm going to discuss are parts three and four, which begins on page four and the way they're interacting with highway safety is part 3 is going to help us keep criminals off the street if you take if you look at page four as existing law they're a number of situation where if someone into custody they're not eligible to be released before the trial the're several section already in there this bill creates a new one it's called a refutable assumption in other words the default situation is this person is going to be kept in custody until the hearing and they'll not be released for any purpose that's refutable in terms of it can be argument can be given against it as to why the person should be released and the judge would have the discretion certain circumstances to release the person. this bill on page five, if you look at F1 creates a debatable presumption that there is no condition of release that will reasonably assure the appearance of the person if the judicial official fines, one of the few following things if that person is unlawfully present in the United States. If the judicial official finds that there's probable cause that this person comited one of the following offences, you can see the list here, sex offences, violence felonies, driving offence, drug offence or gang offence. So this person who is in custody, who is unlawfully present, and has a probable cause to have committed one of these offences will not be released without other for information or rather argument given to the judge. The judge would have the digression if they found that there would be reasonable assurance that this person would appear. The other reason besides the probable cause to believe the person committed on or more of the offences is the United States Immigration enforcement has issued a detainer for the initiation of removal proceedings against the person, so if Ice has said we're going to remove this person and that person will not be released from custody prior to the hearing under the whatever offence they have been taken under. The last section there, section 3B shows, that if someone is charged with a felony request or misdemeanor and they are not lawfully present then they will have to have here to pair his bond so security bond will have to be presented, part four is going to help empower our law enforcement part four sets out ways the law enforcement officers or agencies can make reasonable attempts to verify the immigration status of any persons stopped, detained or arrested, if there's just reasonable suspicion that the person is not lawfully present verification will not be necessary if the person provides certain valid forms of identification such as this bill, verification is basically given as you can see [x] 6, pursue into federal law by law enforcement officer authorized by federal government to verify immigration status or some other manner organised by the Federal Government. The next section 647 Statute is the admissibility of the immigration records in certain cords of the state following this procedure records received from federal government will be certified as valid without the physical presents of the guardian of those records, if this proceed follow that the state notifies the person who's been charged at least 15 days before, and the person fails to follow written objection with the court. So, there's a procedure there for that. The last one is law enforcement would be given the authority to securely transport an alien in that agency's custody to transfer the federal facility inside this state, and in outside the state they could take judicial or executive authorization from the governor before securely transporting that alien. So they are those sections 3 and 4, three will help us keep criminals off the streets, and section 4 is going to empower our law enforcement. Headed over now to Representative Collins. Representative Collins you're recognized. Thank you Mr. Chairman, thank you Committee members, chapter five is pretty straight forward [xx] Representative Collins I think the mic is off. Excuse me, all right. Thank you. All right, did you hear me of what I have said so far. We didn't sir, thank you start over. All right, chapter five simply specified the documents issued by a chancellor or embassy of another country or any other identity document not expressly authorized by the General Assembly which would include some that haven't been issues cities and even non-profit organizations. None of those Ids will

be acceptable for use by offices of the court, by law enforcement or by government officials in determining a person's identity or residence means they won't be able to use these documents for purposes of obtaining a driver's licence, insurance and social services. In other words we know how comprehensive the process is for getting the identity card created by this document, we don't know how well these other groups are investigating what they're doing, so this will basically do away with the legitimacy for those purposes. Representative Warren. Thank you Mr. Chair. This takes us p to part six of the bill which is a creation of a couple of different DMV documents, one of which will be restricted North Carolina ID and the other a restricted North Carolina driver permit. There's a clear distinction between this product called driver's permit and a valid North Carolina drivers license. public touch on the history of North Carolina and driving privileges for undocumented immigrants as we go on but the need for the restricted IDS is to establish identity, law enforcement needs this tool, it will help them. We also need it as representative Collins pointed out there is a beginning of non-profit and municipal ID cards for undocumented immigrants. In Winston [xx] there's a group called CHANGE, which is an acronym for communities helping all neighbors gain empowerment which is issued over 7000 ID cards very similar to this. Documented immigrants. In Grieve Band, we've a group called the faith house which is passed out over the 1800 and surely the city is entertaining the thought of creating admissible ID for undocumented immigrants. Tell them to simulate into the city. We can't have a proliferation of municipalities and known prop creating their own ID cards, and working out some type of propose-tic relationship with local law enforcement and we don't have uniform standards for betting who they're giving a car to. The North Carolina restricted ID and restricted drivers permit will require they're fillable proof of identity, they're fillable proof of residents, the summation for finger printing and for criminal stay and figure out bad object, and if you are waning for privacy from here, they will need to offer cost same deal principle. example, [xx] and I have to take as well as [xx] is in charge, point to the bill if you look page where am not sure which PCS you have. The section, thank you, the section six day there that format per tissue only for one year, there will be remove down in individuals bade a birth that was request by DMB we change the it was in there from being the [xx] short to help stargared renewals. The next section 6C allows the Secretary of Transportation to set the fee for initial one year restricted driver's permit and the renewal fee for the restricted permit at a rate that would reflect the cost to implement, process and furnish the permit DMV's request that it would not exceed $200 but it gives them the latitude of covering all cost of the implementation and the production of the restricted permits and IDs by setting the fee accordingly. And they would have the latitude to adjust fee accordingly. On the next page where it simply says where the laws of the state refer to driver's license or restricted permit fall subject to the same laws that you have for your driver's license. A unique difference though is that the numbers on these permits have an alphabet prefix, so they cannot be used to register to vote and if you look at section Y on that page states that divisions shall work with the state and local agencies on an ongoing basis to ensure that restricted driver's permits are not used to obtain public benefits for which only citizens and lawfully present persons are eligible. There's also a provision like that the section on restricted IDs. There's been some concern as we

built this over the last three years that folks would get insurance to qualify and then cancel their insurance. The section 6F instructs insurance companies that they're not to give a refund to a person that is here illegally with a restricted driver's permit, and any notice of cancellation of policy or lapse to be reported to the division. And there's a section on restricted IDs. Again the fee section is in there the section nine, the division working with our agencies to make sure that it's not getting benefits it's entitled to. And we have a section on the criminal records check on the applicants, we want people to come out of the shadows to participate in this to get as many people licensed in that ID section and as many people permitted in the driving section as we possibly can one of the provisions we have in there to ensure some element of trust for the undocumented community to participate is that none of the information provided to the department. for the application of this two cards, will be used to initiate any type of proceedings against the applicant. However, if engaged in or charged with any crime, this information all becomes available just like it would for you and me. There's a section here which will come up later, section F which allows the Department of Public Safety to enter into a contract with a third party or a DMV for that matter. To enter into a contract to facilitate the background checks and we'll probably go into that shortly. The last section of the bill section seven pertains to the confiscation of vehicles. Well this bill has been criticized as being a step of relaxation for people here documented, the fact of the matter is, nothing can be better for the way the situation is right now. As I said in the beginning of the presentation is between 110, 000 people driving age who are driving in the state without impunity, without impunity without the same requirements you and I are subjected to.  This bill simply says that you will, and you don't you're subjected to your vehicle being confiscated when you're stopped, and if you put the pieces of the bill together, you look at the two sessions that Representative Brown, Jordan and Collins have covered, what this bill says about undocumented community is you have three choices; Number one, come out of the shadows and comply with this bill tell us who you are, where you are, submit the finger prints and a criminal background check, qualifies for a qualify for a restricted ID or restricted drivers permit. If you don't, the second choice is to stay in the shadows, and you're stopped for a broken t-light and you don't have a restricted permit your vehicle will be confiscated. If you were in possession, if you look at the records the rest of the bill, if you're in possession in more than two counterfeit documents, then you'll be charged and taken to jail and you'll have to have secured bail to get out of jail your third choice is simply to leave the state it's that simple, they're other states around us that are offering drivers licenses Illinois I think is right years of driving license without the requirements we're asking in requiring rather in this bill what we're trying to do here is to basically separate the criminal element within the undocumented community from the folks who are otherwise here and not breaking laws other than having snaking into the country if you will, a second objective of the bill is to end or remove this defacto amnesty that we are under right now where our citizens are being engaged in car accidents with people without insurance we are having a high increase of figure to show in courts law enforcement can establish identities of the people they are stopping we want to bring some uniformity to this, third objective is to reduce the risk towards our citizens in terms of identity theft, representative Brown I think in his section is talking about counterfeit documents in North Carolina our North Carolina justice department estimates between 300000 and 400000 North Carolinians are the victims of identity theft each year. This bill will take the sale on manufacture of false documents from a class one misdemeanor to a class G felony so we are going to drift that if you are a victim of identity theft

you will spend hundred of dollars trying to clear your name and in many cases will never happen you will live with that forever, that effects people trying to get jobs trying to get benefits, the fourth objective is to assist law enforcement by creating a state wide database of documented immigrants and our fifth objective as I said is to stop municipalities and non-profit organisations from taking the law into their own hands by creating in a system for id's that has no solid betting process at that point I think we go ahead and take some questions from the committee Mr. Chair. Thank you Rep. Warren first on my list Rep. Adams I believe you had your hand up recognizing you. Yes thank you Mr. Chairman looking at section 2b paragraph two this is on page to 17, says to counterfeit sell in to or knowing what permit the use of one not entitled to a driver's licence, launch permit, restricted driver permit, restricted identification card, special identification card, the person who this subdivision is guilty of a plus G felony, does that apply to anyone or only the alien? That applies to anyone, cause it said earlier this bill applies to citizens as well as undocumented immigrants. I can imagine how many times I've known of youngsters passing around drivers license and permits, in fact I found my dad's false filed license for 1919 so I wonder about that, that's pretty harsh. There's a in the bill for rights of passage if you will. It's allows for those under 18 or 21 looking desperately for that piece for you, maybe staff could help identify that. Staff can you assist in that Representative Warren. Thank you, do we have a cabinet there for under 18 and under 21 for the purchase of cigarettes and alcohol and Christine can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe you might be referring to possession by someone either under 21 or under 18 I think for purposes of trying to use a fake ID for example to buy alcohol or purchase cigarettes it's still a misdemeanor, the offences that have had the penalty increase to a felony for someone who's engaged in the manufacture or sale of fake ID's. Thank you for your question, Thank you Representative Adams, Representative Hager Thank you Mr. Chairman just a question of in the motion it proper time, Representative Warren how long have you been working on this so July 19th 2013. Thank you, Mr. Chairman promotion is prompt time. Okay, thank you sir Representative Jeter   Mr. Chair my question may be more toward DMV I don't know how to handle this committee this morning or any morning for that matter. Not this committee, just me personally. I'm concerned how we handle this from an implementation perspective from DMV on a fiscle note there doesn't appear to be any unless I'm misreading it which is certainly possible, there doesn't seem to be any increased cost. Can I can we ask DMV? Mr. Chairman, I yield to you on that request. Is there anyone here from agency. Is anyone here from DMV that would like to address the Please state your name press the microphone and hold that. State your name and your agency and if you can ask your question. I appreciate, Mr. Chairman. I'm Kelly Thomas, commission of motor vehicles and thank you for the question as a physical note states, DMV is currently under contract to replace the state automated driver's license program. It's a more [xx] contract that complete removal and replacement of that program will be complete by January 2018. This bill by this timeline ask for us

to change the legacy system while still changing under contract for a new system. So the fiscal impact is a $2.3 million dollar cost to DOTIT to change the legacy system while we are already paying for the new system to be replaced. Follow up? Follow up So if I understand you correctly what you're saying is it's a $2.3 million new cost based on this overlapping change. Yes sir. Thank you, sir. Mr. Chair? Representative Warren Can I respond to that please? You can. If the cost of $2.3 million is indeed factual, and I contest that from my patients with more of a trust in it. That's a delicate situation, and I don't want to get into detail here with it. I'd be glad to talk to the commissioner offline with that, but if indeed that is a factual cost, the cost as per the bill is to be borne by the applicants further. So in other words if you had 325, 000 people here undocumented in North Carolina and only 15% come forward to apply for either a restricted ID or restricted drivers permit, you have 48, 750 applicants, if you charge with just $60, you would generate $2, 925, 000, you would more than cover that cost. This Bill has been worked on for over three years, and has had over 60 different stakeholders involved in its construction. There's very little if anything at all that's been overlooked in this Bill the implementation, we've gone beyond policy and looked at the practicality of implementation to be able to answer such objections as thank you for the question. Thank you, next up Representative Coram Thank you Mr. Chairman and representative Warren I do commend your heart and passion for this issue and you've worked very diligently. Can we go to the actual ID card just for clarification. I know you want to do away with non profit ID's which I can understand that part and so my question, would that also include school IDs from high school's especially because they also give out IDs for students and then the city of Charlotte, like you mentioned, has been spending a lot of time trying to form this and so they would stop all their efforts. Representative Warren.  Thank you Mr. Chairman, I apologize. That's an excellent question, I want to clarify something for the bill doesn't prohibit none profits from having or creating a membership card or an ID card for that particular purpose, what it does prohibit is municipalities from creating your own card and it does prohibit the government agencies or entities from recognizing non profit cards for identification purposes. So if fake based organisations want to do something for what other purpose they want to identify folks that they are giving persistence to, that's fine. That for, the situation we have now in, wind started with increased speed and although most of the expected which in consequence is which there is a problem you know accepting the coded has the African [xx] as the code has been encoded to you don't know if you are giving the concept to someone who said Jacguan will verify in the country wherever. So by having in most of the learning restricted by day, any you one fortunate season wants to work with a community and uses this car that I had restricted most of her day individual has been fingerprinted and has had criminal background checks state in federal. Representative Heins Thanks Mr. Chairman, representative Warren, your team thanks very much for your hard work on this bill. I do have a question and a concern that goes back to section two and I know we already spoken about that, this really gives me heart burn, with regard to how we plan to separate those who manufacture or sell false or forgerized forms by an identification from those who are just in possession and I understand at that rate through, I think that you've tried to address The underlined issue of this matter's really catching up our kids who are 18 or under who are trying

to use this identifications to buy alcohol buy tobacco. One thing I would say I didn't see here is what about those who are using that to get into night clubs someone who's from a coast town, went to school in the coast, I know Representative sative Brown represents Green vo[sp?]. I really think we have something here that's going to sweep up, potentially sweep up a whole a lot of college kids, and it could really cause a problem. We're talking about a class g felony here, and I just happened to be going through the guidelines when I saw that, and class G felony in North Carolina, 2nd degree burglary, 2nd degree arson re-possession of firearms, schedule of class, schedule one or two, controlled substances. I appreciate what you are doing and understand how you prefer cleanliness, but there more to be done on this so we can do to make these a bit easier the ultimate goal is so that we cannot refer to rites of passage kind of situations. Representative Warren thank you Mr. Chair, I know you are referring to the section not only permits the use of, I would argue legislative intent come into play with that definition in a case of a court trial and I think that argumentative but we could I'll be glad to discuss that with you if you have some clarifying language. Again, our intent here with the bill was to hold people who are here illegally accountable to some law, and to create a system whereby we can separate those who are engaged in felonious crimes from those who are not. that's the intent of the bill. Representative Brown. Just one clarifying point on section two B as well, and to your point, the class two felony is for those who sell manufacture the fraudulent identification in cards, but if you actually look at number nine under section 2B, to present, display or use the drivers licence it's a class I felony not a class G felony. Follow up? Follow up and again I think my point would just be if you're dealing with a college kid, how are you going to separate that out? Who's manufacturing? Who's just who's just hanging out in the mall? As I said, I would be glad to talk to you offline with that. Thank you, representative Haynes representative. Warren. Just so you know I've got Rep. Moore, Rep. Szoka, Rep. Jones, Rep. Martin, Rep. Blast. Rep. Blast, I've got an amendment here at my desk. I saw you raise your hand, did you want to kind along the same thing that we were just talking about? Was your comment on that or you want to wait for your amendment? Okay. Rep. Moore. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and this is more of a quick statement more so than a question. First of all, Rep. Warren and others I want to thank you for your due diligence on this bill. I know it's been a tough stretch for you I know how it is when you keep working on things over and over again. This bill is it's one of the best bills. It's evolved into something that I feel very, very comfortable with supporting. As to Rep. Warren's point, we really have to get our people out of the shadows, and let me say this I look at the language. I always here the term aliens. It sounds like these human beings are from Mars or Venus or something these are people who immigrated to our country for whatever reason. They may not be compliant with the laws of our land, but they came here, for the most part, on the goodwill and looking for a better life for their families and things for their children. We need to really be respectful in our language going forward about how we define these people. They are not aliens they are immigrants and at some point in time all of us, all of us as Americans, were immigrants whether we were forced or we came voluntarily and so this a bill I think it's a very good first step to bring in [x] bring in his [xx] out of the shadow making him compliant with the law of the land and holding them to some accountability. And so, I strongly support this bill, let me say that publicly and I tend to support the World's [xx] motions, thank you. [xx] there are more of that. Thank you Mr. Chair I

agree that there is a lot in this bill it is very good and there is a lot that I like however I have two questions and the first is what is the difference between a permit and a licence? [xx] thank you, that's a great question the, to call this permit equate it with a licences is like saying a tomato and a banana are the same because they are both fruit the permit and the licences the similarity there is that you can drive period but whether they value North Carolina driers license it will be compliance with the real id act, you can enter federal building, you can registered vote you can sign up for retirement programs it's a valid North Carolina ID with the restricted permit you can drive the prefix of the number is an alpabet letter which I don't know may be from board of election was able to come here this morning and we gave him light notice on that but they will tell you because of the prefix letter being an alpha this car can't be used to register the voters another safe campaign there the part of the permit also restates right above the picture, you've seen a Deca drivers permit, a drivers licence the Deca drivers licence says legal presence, it actually says about the photo drivers licence. Under the photo it says legal presence, no legal status. This would say restricted permit and underneath of no legal status, no legal presence, it clearly identifies the holder as being here undocumented. Follow up. Follow up. Thank you for that answer because prior to committee meeting, I tried to find the answer to that question myself. When I look up the definition of permit actually synonym name is licence. So, and I've asked several people over the course of the last several months, that question here in the building and at home and really nobody understands the difference between a permit and a license stated as your bill is what that difference is. However most people throughout the state aren't to writing bills and trying to understand we are in this you said that there could be three outcomes of these. One people coming out of the shelves which is is very good but their choice is rather one, they could stand the shadow and if caught the vehicle it would be confiscated or they could leave the state so this is leading up to another question, and that question is in the past three years you've been working on the bill, you mentioned Illinois for example that they've had drivers licences. I'm concerned that maybe another outcome that people don't understand the difference between permit and licence, like I frankly don't, and this could be a magnify for people to come into the state. In the studies of other states licence or permits that have been issued to this class of people. What results have we seen in other states? Were is the going, Representative [xx] Thank you, first correctly you did your service to send out the questionaire to a [xx] nine different States and have some of the information they got back no [xx] Raddle had lady should that 18300 of the you had a drivers licences which is [xx] for three year period and is 50000.50. They should 1734 IDs $14 [xx] are the instruction permits that four hundrend and eighty six are responsible against the $14 [xx] was just close to ten thausand 220 drivers licences suddenly $ 72 each good for years. The ID are fascinating one of those we should again get three years cost this [xx] [xx] permits the number we have here is 39542 valid any where from six months to two years across $ 30 as $ 50. The march driving previllage car there they segregate should be 44000 [xx] to the four year duration $5, there's a lot of, you brought a very valid point with that [xx] for just a minute and that's the general public and being one them I know we do not have time of getting all the new ounces of legislation you and I are confronted with everyday, but that's why you and I. You and I are charged with the responsibility, getting facts on both sides of the issue, that's why when we've tough decisions like this we really struggling with then when it came to fracking when it came to updating abortion clinics you know the intent was good and their was nothing wrong with the bills but you put up with a lot of charges that were true based on the way it was presented to the general public. So we're always you're in a position of having to try to explain a vote, which is much critical, you understand this bill. But that's why we're here, to make the tough choices, to get all the facts you did the

right thing and then our biggest responsibility is to go home and be able to explain it to our constituent when you talk about other states and what they did the green states or states are giving drivers license now the peak once requires some clear now back in the 1900's or 2000's North Carolina opened up doors DMV which people in their email campaign to try to discredit his bill allude to that but when he did that back then they were only staying on the eastern open in it up, and they opened up the doors to the DMV to drivers' licenses and just like with New Mexico and Washington stae that's a nightmare so like that, when I was riding the boat I beat some marine one of the reason is that expired licence had it no more than 10 year because the last issued drivers licence from that time period should have experied I believe I recall correctly in February 2006 which would have put us with the implementation of voter ID in 2016 would have put that beyond that pale, so this different this is different and no other state is required finger printing, criminal background checks were only valid for one year, this is a division, this is getting our arms around the undocumented situation in our state, this putting an end to the defacto amnesty that's currently going on and I would tell you I understand, I've understod it for three years, this is a tough call for you but the choice that you really have is to actually to political misconception about the bill for political reasons or to address a situation is dangerous for our citizens and take that first step towards doing something about it, we cannot continue to verify people who try to make some in road to addressing immigration and undocumented presence in our state while we're waiting on our government to do their job, so I encourage you to continue to question and feel good about the answers and let's do something together. Representative Jordan you like to respond as well? Thank you Mr. Chairman, I'd like to respond to Representative Szoka. Representative Szoka, you and I are involved with another is also getting a lot of mis information and mis communication out there. What I would simply say with regards to drivers permit versus drivers license, is most familiar with learners permit which actually was mentioned by [xx]. My kids aren't is but most parents are familiar with that and we all know the learners permit is a license with restrictions on it and that's what all this is, it's a one year type of permit, it has background criminal record and background checks, fingerprints and a lot of restrictions on it, and that's simply how I would respond, when somebody says what's the difference between the two. It's just a large permit. Follow up Representative Warren's comment  about this bill in general, I can appreciate the difficulties that you're having with deciding whether to support this bill and different provision of this bill, but there's someone who's been involved with this along with Representative Warren. We're in indivalve[sp?] with this issue because we think this is a response, and it's a good solution to a problemt that we are dealing with, and if we didn't have a fedaral governmnet that it completely drop the ball I mean entire issue we wouldn't have to deal with any of this right now. So, we've got to do something, this is a way that we think can encourage some folks to come out to the shadow to tell us who they are, where they are to get insurance as far as I'm concern, when I think of my family driving, and think of the folks out there that are driving that will continue to drive. it regards to what laws we pass except something like this that will require them to come and get insurance, I think that will make a safer situation it can't be worse than it currently is, so that's why while I am involved with this their is no personal benefit that I am getting from this particular public policy am certainly getting a lot of criticism but I think it's the right public policy and that's why I am involved with it and that's why I appreciate Rep. Warren's leadership on this. Thank you Rep. Jordan next up kind of give you a list and Representative Jones, Representative Martin, Representative Blust, Representative Johnson, Representative Ross, Representative Alexander, and Representative Hamilton. Representative Jones you're recognized. Inquiry the Chair. Yes. Are we preparing to vote in today? The intend was to vote but I also want to make sure that we have a good discussion and we do have a long list of forks who want to talk so we play that by her, Thank you Rep. Glitter, Rep. Jones and I do appreciate the opportunity that we have to enter into some debate and discussion, I want to start by saying I think their are are legitimate reasons to oppose this bill we've heard their are misinformation and deliberate or not deliberate or whatever but I have a concern I think

that we grossly underestimate the value and the rights of citizenship in this country and the seriousness to the crime of illegally entering this country and sometimes we cross over that rather flippantly when we're talking about when we say will to you know this people they really haven't done anything wrong for except of the fact that they're here illegally. I think we should stop and think about that just a little bit. I understand politically correct language and we hear a lot about undocumented immigrants, and let me just say this the word alien and all it means is foreigner, if you look at the dictionary, Alien is a foreigner, a person who is not a naturalized citizen of the country where they're leaving, so if one of us is American we decide that we want to go and leave in Canada or Germany or some other country we are not a naturalized citizen we are an alien, doesn't mean they're terrible person or they were from another planet or something like that, so maybe we should just keep that in mind so in fact we're aliens, and who are here illegally. I mean let's at least recognize that. If you don't agree, if you heard the bill great that's fine, but lets at least recognize in our language what we're talking about I'm an opposed to the bill I'm opposed to section six of the bill, and I hope we pass representative Blass amendment that offer as the core sponsor and I hope we should do that, and let me say this I have the greatest respect for the primary sponsoring and to all sponsoring of this bill and to the work its gone into it I appreciate that and I agree with a lot of things its been said. It's prine shame that we're here today because of the failure of the federal government to act but you know two wrongs don't necessarily make a right, and I just want to say a few things of why I think we should stop and pause when we're looking at section six of these bill and not just flippantly say will and they here and we really can't do anything about it so let's just go ahead and suction that with a permit. The fact the matter is the driver card is a form of identification by the definition by very definition it is the form of identification they are going to be using when there're stopped by the law enforcements and to try to suggest that it's not or that it couldn't somehow be used in a way that we don't want to see it used. I think that's a little bit overreach as well. There's an opportunity for fraud that I think we need to take seriously. Talking about working on something for a long time and all that we've been through passing voter ID laws in the state, I think we need to stop and think about the fact that we are fixing to vote on something where we would be giving someone a document that could be used in a fraudulent way, Sometimes I think of things in pretty simple terms. So you probably figured that out, I'm not quite a sophisticated maybe on some of the minds but if I were here illegally, I would support this. Now think about that. And just as we've heard from so many that do, so people who are here illegally support this. So what does that mean? If it's Is considered a positive in the illegal community which to me is exactly why we shouldn't do it. We shouldn't be encouraging, we shouldn't be endorsing, we shouldn't be accepting illegal immigration in any way. It's against the law, the law that we swore to uphold by the way. It's in our state, and it's costing the legal citizens of our state over $2 billion a year. To think about that from the financial stand point. I think we need to stop and think are we incenivising, are we making our state, I saw the map that was held up, I didn't see too many states in this area. As a matter of fact I saw a vast majority of states that haven't done this or anything like this, and maybe there's a reason for that. Maybe we need to stop and pause. So many states that I saw that have done it, are quite frankly states that I may not want to emulate on this bill or any other bills. I think it's concern in section X page 11 line 12 where we're saying no information shared If you're a law enforcement officer and you get information showing that this person is here illegally, well you can't use that to try to escort them out of the country when they are here illegally. We've heard that this is great for law enforcement, law enforcement needs this too, but yet I'm hearing quite frankly from my own sheriff and other sheriffs and my sheriff is here today. And he has been very

active on the issue of illegal immigration and he's opposed to it and I am too. This provision for a driving permit it does have the potential to create fraud and I believe it does create a magnet to North Carolina for other illegal aliens who would seek a driving privilege or perhaps an ID card and essentially it provide what you could call a Visa for travel in the state for the people that do not have legal presence here. I think we need to think about that it has been said that it is convinient for our officers. It's going to be convinient for our officers. Well, convinience should not come at the expense of public safety in North Carolina statutes currently allow officers to transport unknown offenders of the law to the magistrate's office to determine their identity while under this bill that will not happen it is good to say right and then move on you know it is hardly said by some that the illegal aliens are going to drive without a license anyway so we just may as well give them a driving privilege, and I'll just stop and pause and think if you apply that to other laws that we are to enforce that is a side commentary to say we really can't stop it so we just go ahead and we are going to issue a driving privilege.  I hope you have finally considered Representative Blass amendment, I would love to vote for this bill  I think there are a lot of great provisions in the bill, I would frankly like to see us send the bill alone that the senator will take up and the governor will sign it's my true belief that if we pass this bill in its current form that's not going to happen, we're going to go through to a nice exercise here today and all members are going to take a very difficult vote whichever side you're on and that's going to be the end of it because I truly believe and I think most of you know the has a nice round file waiting for it but if we change this bill and take out the parts that even the sponsors admit are very objectionable, are very controversial, we could send the bill over to the senate, the pages might pass and our governor might sign it and we might actually pass a law. So perhaps we might think about that as we go forward Mr. Chair I can't support the bill in its current form, I hope that we'll support the [xx] amendment and then pass on something that perhaps can pass, thank you for the opportunity. Thank you representative Johns, and this is coming from the chair, since we had a question for representative Jitra the chair agreed with the bill sponsor to give me a fair hearing, so I appreciate the commentary and as the time is a little longer but we know this bill is controversial so therefore we're having a good discussion. and it's my pressure to do this sir. Representative Susan Martin? I think my question will address about what was happening in other states with Representative Szoka, thank you. Thank you Representative Martin. Representative Blust. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'd first like to have ask a question before I propose the amendment and my question is really representative [xx] got to section X, it's on page 11 line nine the subsection W, whatever the laws of this state referred to a driver's license to turn can also be construed to refer to a restricted driver's permit except when the lwa being construed a benefit, privilege or right for which the lawfully presence is a prerequisite, and my question is the practical use of these permits because I've noticed when people ask for my driver's license usually say if I use a credit card or something, so many times I'll start to pull pull it out, no, no, no, okay that's the driver's license check and I know this is going to have a little letter in there thing, but I'm wondering the practical effect how likely are the people who check the licenses going to catch that and is there a penalty for the checker if a restricted license or restricted permit is used to get one of these benefits which the law says it shouldn't, is there a penalty on on the people who will be doing the license checking. Representative Warren Thank you. While you're speaking I was trying to imagine what situations you're talking about if you're talking about any situation whether somebody is signing up for snap card over signing up for a Walmart card. As part of what you said strikes me as being employee another one could be agency protocol or agency systemic proms and agencies that are really difficult to answer which I imagine he would be my guest like some agencies or some companies do have some

type of penalties or response for an employee who'd errantly uses an ID card, but perhaps I'm not really understanding your question. Representative Blass? My point was I think practical real world effect there won't really be a difference, and with that we recognize Mr. Chair to propose my amendments. You're recognized for amendment representative Blass. I think it's been passed out, my amendment is to eliminate the driver's privilege and the Identification Card from the bill, I move adoption, I probably can't say my explanation better than chair and page has, I don't know if everyone has his remarks, I do fear and I know the time constraints not having heard from the public might leave us open to certain critics who claim were afraid of our own shadows but I understand the time constraints but I just think there's good reason not to have a way to and I guess the best way to put it is the drivers, the pyramid, the identification card, deposits at least some degree of legitimacy on those who posses them, and I think that's just the wrong way to go about it, I agree with those who believe that, that can become incentive to come here and I understand the problem that we face and I understand that the bill structure desires to do something about the situation that is unattainable because of the federal government and the fact they will not enforce current laws and that's a problem but I feel we only make the problem worse by giving any incentive to draw more people here the first and it's not a very hard concept to grasp for the first thing that has to be done for this country to get control its border everything else has to wait until that first step is taken, because if that step is not taken, everything we do to ameliorate the problem is just going to get worse because it draws more and makes the problem bigger, and I understand the frustrations, I'm frustrated with the two but this was more road to go down, and again I'll leave it at that and just commend the rationale of Sheriff Page in his proposed remarks and I'd move the adoption the amendment. We have a motion thus speak on the motion I get Representative Jones. I think Representative Warren would like to respond first. Anyone else wanting to speak on the amendment Representative Stam? speak against the amendment first of all very reasons Rep. Blust gave. If you take out the restricted ID and restricted permit, you've eliminated the criminal background checks and you've eliminated the fingerprinting to eliminate the creation of state wide database he talked about shares support shares support I would expect our [xx] I know we have testified on this subject that the US congress in many times and it is an excellent authority on the situation but the push of opposition shows associations of position more presition, because I congur with this they divided on the issues, some because political and we have political I give, I may, but let me present this bill in the judicial 1 committee from [xx] on behalf of the wolrd care learning, chief of police associations is proving the bill did world care learning aims have no objection to the bill enforcement who process the  benefit from this bill, let me talk about this from the public, can we try in changing this buying on the two tables the two earning yearns petitions page after page petitions of world care earning citizens I know some of you have gotten 200 or 300 emails but across the country [xx] that a building one or two adequate groups which may disrupt the presented bill which is exactly one of those emails that are writing read the bill, know the bill and evaluate the two that the fact we have is for the last two years with it must be 10, 000 signatures of most care earning citizens supporting this bill which is too profession in it. We have I have another binder up there with over six hundred meters from business people spotting the bill the red binder is letter from stake holders that we

work with on the spill for the last three years if you take out the provision that requires you if you are here illegally that requires you to come out the shadows submit the figure prints submit the back projects if here we moved that I submit to you representative Bross that will encourage more people to come here because what we have is a defector amour state  which we don't support creating this two documents you are saying let us just go with he status Quo that you and I have to get insured to drive we have to take [xx] for our lives our children has to log hours of driving before they get a license. They didn't come here illegally, just pick a car somewhere and take off. I am absolutely flabbergasted by the people I've spoken to elected officials and some in law enforcement, who say well, I know someone or I personally was involved in a wreck by with an illegal who didn't, who almost killed me, I would be darned if I gave him a driver's license, well me too. And that's the point of the Bill so I mean when he says lets think about it when representative Johns says let's think about what we are done I encourage you to think about it think about at it because what we are doing is deciding wqether or not we are going to hold people countable or whether we are going to continue with the status quar and a few steps away from the politics of this for a minute and look at the logic behind it you will see that this is the right thing to do. And if you are concerned that my folks back home won't understand as my tea party guys won't to understand, what is the solution? The solution lies with the federal government and I share their frustration I share yours that they will do something but you don't venture frustration at at the first person tries to make a step in the right direction and the first thing we need to do as Michael Charles said when he was in charge we have to secure the boarder and one thing this bill would do if you are in the illegal community and you know North Carolina is going to require you to submit the criminal background checks and finger prints if you go there illegally then you are going to look at some place Illinois or some place. By the way drivers license and permits in driving privileges doesn't drive immigration to your state, the opportunity to work does, there are no people in Honduras saying oh God if I can just get the North Carolina get a driver's silence. It's an opportunity to work the dry people the dry immigration so I encourage you yes to thing about this when you talk about the opportunity for flood if we don't do this what do you think is going on this very minute? People who are driving are driving on fraudulent IDs. Fraudulent IDs it's somewhere in this country if they check out to be real means somebody is a victim of identity theft. So you talk about fraudulent IDs and deal with a righteous attitude that the this will create an opportunity for us I can take that this program of state for Federal level that doesn't create an opportunity for fraud. This actually addresses fraud, when you talk about you don't know why somebody would do this well, why are people in the legal community, while are some of them are in favor of this? Because as I said earlier in the illegal community you have a segment that is engaging [xx] crimes and they do take advantage of other people who are here illegally, and by having a system where an individual can say yes I have been vetted, I have been criminal background check and I not afraid to be got work with law enforcement and report crime now. they were a lot of state that are doing this I want emulate [xx] I try in North Carolina. The guest I'm also presenting this bill because I want to move North Carolina forward, and I want to move it forward on this issue, I would encourage you not even consider this amendment.  We are in the amendment, Representative Jones you would like to speaker, you are recognized.  Thank you Mr. Chair and I appreciate the opportunity to speak on the amendment and I won't. I will repeat some of the things I said earlier as far as the issues are concerned and I do want to make just a few comment number one I greatly admire and appreciate the bill's sponsor, and I appreciate his zeal and the work that he has done on this issue and but I had to say that, this isn't about legislatures doing the biding of the tea party or any particular group, or it's not about politics, believe it or not sometimes good people can look at issues and come to different conclusions. And I think we had to be careful in addressing other people's motives sometimes, and I know we get jealous sometimes, and things that particularly we've worked real hard for. But I do believe that there are good people, there are looking at this and are coming to perhaps a little bit different conclusion than the bill sponsors. I think it's worthy to note that there are 10, 000 people that signed something out there in favor of it, but it's also worthy to note that 10, 000 out of 10 million citizens is 0.1% of

the population, so I think there're plenty of things out there on both sides. Everybody here admits this is  extremely controversial measure. Whether you are for it or against it, and the point of process that I would make is that of this very long bill. I don't see a lot of great controversy in the rest of the bill. I think the rest of the bill will just move right through probably both bodies be signed into law and if this section 6 is such a great thing, why can't it pass on it's own merit? why does it have to be lumped in with all the other parts? If it is a good thing, and if it's something that's body out to do, Why can't it be passed on it's own merits? So, I'm just asking as a point of process, why not take the low hanging proof that is out there If we've got all these good measures in the bill that we believe can pass not only here but believe it or not the house of representatives cannot pass a law by itself. We do need some help from the other bodies It might pass, it might pass in an amended form. We talk about the sheriffs and yes, my sheriff is strongly opposed to it and I know that others are, but quite frankly serifs don't have to take a position a such a controversial bill, and they probably live in areas where many us do, where maybe there are people [xx] on both sides, they don't have here and press the green button or the red button, they don't have take a public view so many of them are not going to. But many of them privately are also saying that they are not in support of this, they don't think it's a good thing think it's a logical fallacy to say that we will all achieve a [x] with status quo. There are only two possible options out there, either you're defending the status quo and everything is great the way it is, or you've got to pass this just exactly the way it is. There might be there might be some other options, I'm just saying to this body is a matter of process. Why not take this provision out, run it as a separate bill and if it's a good bill let it pass on it's own merits. I support the blast amendment. Thank you Representative Jones. Representative Stam I oppose the amendment obviously gets to the bill. We've got a huge problem a huge problem with the uninsured and unidentifiable drivers, all solutions problems, no solution is a bigger problem, This is the best one I have seen there others are welcomed to offer other solutions I haven't seen but quite frankly serifs don't have to take a position on such a controversial bill. And they probably live in areas where many I'll try to be [xx] and I want to speak for police officers in this situation. I want to aim in for Representative Warren for what sounded like close a remark. What Representative Stein was saying regarding somebody has got to come up with a solution. What I would merely say I think it's good that we are concerned about the senate, but I don't think there will be going to pass a whole a lot of [xx] here if we presume to know what the Senate will or won't do. And I think we've already shown that at times there may be disagreements with the Governor. That's why we're our own body. What we should do is pay attention to practical effects of this beyond the political, and I agree with Representative Jones. I hate it when we decide that we're going to determine other peoples motives based to their votes that source, I'm glad to hear him say that, but I do disagree on the position of law enforcement on this. I do criminal defense, I talked to officers all the time I used prosecute it for several years, and I can tell you most law enforcement would pay you money to get a fingerprint database there's not a fingerprint database of all of us. That they can have a fingerprint database now based on this bill. They get an opportunity to get people to report crimes which is a much more serious problem than you would believe. I've represented people in situations where there's one person in the neighborhood who's got a driver's license and got an ability to do some things and so they charge hundreds of dollars to people who don't have that opportunity exploit them take advantage of them use them put them in almost the same situation they would be and switch off in other types of situation so what this does is it allows these people to come out of the shadows, number one. Number two what I think it does is, I agree with you Rep. Warren, I don't think you'll get one human being who is going to come here based on the fact that they can get a permit because the other thing that it does is fg is what shows the balance that Representative Warren has tried to find is that is a notification. Once you've got that permit, it says you are here and you are undocumented. So it's not a situation where

somebody gets to walk around and feel comfortable. They understand what that means every time they are stopped everytime they've got to present that ID, but it's worth the tradeoff, and I agree with representative Stan, you get people getting insurance, you get people assembling of sales some sort of society, there are problems that we can't solve here, that we've got to wait of federal government to solve, we understand that, but we got to it from way down the federal government to solve, we understand that, but we've go to make steps to sit on our hands and pretend that's not an issue and pretend that bodies will disappear, it will just pretend we're not there, I don't think it's the way we should perceive, so I would, again and representative Blast of judiciary two, this is one of those areas we do not to disagree that we do not support this amendment and that we tried to move forward with this bill, they still what can be done with this bill if people have some issues but let's move forward, thank you. The amendments before us, representative Warren the comment was made about 10000 being a small percentage. Back in March 2013 working on this bill, we actually did do a survey and I know some of you got an email that said that they're elluded to a survey and so the outrageous numbers is 80%. I've never seen a survey that set down and it was like chocolate ice cream, 80% of the people said yes, this was a real survey that we took had mission in 2013 on this bill and the question was, giving drivers permits to otherwise qualified and documented worker and require them to buy auto charges and would you support this? In that survey 566% of the Republicans responded yes 61.2% of Democrats responded yes and 61.2% of the aniffiliated in the survey responded yes it's logical it make sense to require them to therefore they know the rules of the road and that they have insurance and they are qualified to drive, again I ask you not to support the amendment. The time is 9:50 we have the amendment before us we can vote on that then we continue the discussion. Representative Boas. Just quick response I'm told that the governor, secretary Tayler and the DMV commissioner support this amendment oppose the bill without it. Just like to address a couple of things. One is the insurance and someone explain to me once why this wouldn't work, what would happen is to get the permit you go get a policy, get the permit then you don't pay for the policy and the insurance raps, but you've got the permit finally Representative Stein I think was very honest in saying this gets the bill because it makes the point that the bill is really this amendment with a few adornments stack on it to try they make it more favourable to swallow the rest of it so I think that was a good comment to make I think this is a good amendment I think we can feel in, more than honestly on people if you gave them some more frequent of. We are overlooking the fact you came without legal basis and then we started giving you this and this year Judamisi again any country in the world in the world in the entire word can which us take up and dial and start encovers [xx] demands the and allows the status in the end the heaven no lives no other country does this in the entire world there is no problem which you can dial and at circle being in the media changed usual being the bad portion [xx] can along, I like this continue and I'm carried we taking one more step down the to legitimacy if we allow these permits, thank you. The motions on the amendment all those in favor should [xx] say aye, Aye! Those opposed likes [xx]  no The opinion of chair the ayes have it. Well, it's the opinion of The Chair. You can appeal the opinion of The Chair. Division has been called.  Mr. Chairman. I would like a show of hands please. All those in favor please raise your hand, of the amendment then hold it up please high so that clerks can see. 11, for the

amendment, okay, those opposed please raise your hand. thank you. So the amendment bills we do it differently in the house. The Chair doesn't care how loud you could shout different star wish character. I've a different star wish character, correct. Never said my car chip. Next on my list is speak on the bill Representative Johnson Thank you Mr. Chair I looked around the room I think I counted four may be five people that were here during 911, let me say that I appreciate the effort for it's have gone into this bill but when I got to page 10 line 39 I understand the word unlawful unlawfully here, it just pop something in my mind and I was thinking, I was sitting in finance and I was this was after 911 and the emotional part was getting much better and were trying to find out what it happened in 911 and everyday I literaly prayed and that we as a state North Carolina would not have any part in that happening, sure enough the commission get a stand and found out that, but found out a lot of things but one of the things that was said during the commission hearing was that North Carolina did not have a part in it but Virginia and Florida did there was a TSA agent who was testifying before the commission and he said year that person hadn't had a valid drivers license or an authorization from the state of and he stated the state it was, I believe it was Florida. And he had been carrying a visa from the United Arab Emirate. We may have checked his luggage but the authority given to that person through that authorization document made us feel secure, I just want you not to forget what happened and not learn from what's happened happened before, there's I don't support this bill and I appreciate the work that on it but just like Rep. Warren said, we just can't have of those local people issue on all these documents, they're trying to solve the federal problem too and I would assume that the federal government feel exactly the same way, we can't have all these states trying to solve our I hope you would consider not voting for this bill. Representative Ross. Thank you Mr chairman just a little bit of a different question if you go to page 19 in line 32 under the seizure and impoundment for fortury of motor vehicles I've had some concerns brought to me from law enforcement that this could create an intended consequence of I guess that the best way to, more cars, more vehicles that they can deal with and I went out, finally went out last saturday night and rode with highway patrol and I can tell you that they're probably a good percentage of the cars that were stopped either had no license or had a wrong tag or combination of both has it been discussion as to

and I know has been because you've worked on this for three years can you help me to understand possible unintended consequence of flood of of seized cars some law enforcement telling me that they'll just don't think they'll be able to handle that all slot of cars and we actually address that in the bill, the provision there for the confiscation of cars really pertains to two categories one is citizens who were driving with their license revoked due to [xx] specifically and the other one was undocumented who was driving don't have or never applied for a restricted permit so if you had have a restricted permit or you're driving without your license and you're able to produce it later you wouldn't have your car confiscated and we addressed that in the method for healing I knew that would come up and I specifically asked Ben Stanly who actually works with me on the bill from staff to try  to be here but he is tied up in the senate budget talks their but we actually change the handling of that because we run into that problem Representative  Ross with the running your done bill that Representative Flatley had high speed chases that would result in the confiscation of the vehicle and so came up their but the handling procedure was changed for that and this is the same way where it basically goes to the ALA right away where they can jump the car sale in them but we try to mitigate that problem their into your point their are a number of cars and we are trying to generalize everything but their are a number of cars that are confiscated worth good money and those others that are not able to cover the cost of the towing and the storage  members of the committee it's 9:59 we are not permitted to under house rules to take a vote after tentell[sp?] our end time so we will continue this discussion at a later day, I appreciate the good discussion, I appreciate the bill sponsors and I appreciate all your commentaries we do stand adjourned.